The London Globalist: The Precarious Balance of Power by The London Globalist

Issue no. 7, February 2016

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

The Precarious Balance of Power

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

CONTENTS Issue no. 7, February 2016 - The London Globalist

4 Letter from the President

30 The Tipping Scale

5 Introduction from the Editor

by Mallika Iyer

6 Quantifying the Balance of Power

ASIA

8 Balance of Power Through the Ages by Mylinh Dang

33 The Rise of China: A Threat to Liberal World Order by Charlotte Hoiness

11 The MADness of a Mad World by Megan Erickson

36 The Great Fall of China by Abhishek Parasrampuria

THE MIDDLE EAST

38 The BRICS: A Post-Colonial Rising Power

15 The Egyptian Element

by Anushar Thanasekaran by Mahmoud Elbanhawi

41 Contemplating South Asian Wars

18 The Iran Nuclear Deal: An International Relations

by Pratinav Anil

Explosion

EUROPE

by Camilla Savanco

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

44 A Year of Terror by Paula Grabosch

22 What to Expect When Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re Electing

48 The Master of Puppets Alfred Wong

by Marta Kozielska

26 Politicizing the Crisis by Ryan Kelly

ON THE COVER Aastha Arora chose a cracking pyramid to represent the precarious balance of power in the international system. At the top, the anti-imperial hegemon, the United States of America, reigns supreme. But Uncle Samâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rule is contested by an ambitious China with India and Brazil following not too far behind. Germany struggles to maintain its position in the balance of power while supporting a defeated Greece. Russia, on the other hand, is hard at work re-inventing itself supported by its existing military might. Last, Iran remains a significant figure due to its oil industry and recent change in position in the international system.

Letter from the

PRESIDENT Dear Readers, It is with immense pleasure that I am able to introduce you to the flagship project of the London Globalist – our annual magazine. A countless number of hours have gone into the production of this publication and I hope that you enjoy reading through highly intellectually stimulating articles produced by the students at the LSE. Mallika Iyer, the Magazine Editor in Chief, along with her team has done a spectacular job and I hope that you duly recognize their achievement! As part of the introduction, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to the London Globalist and fill you in about the initiatives that we have launched over the course of this year and where the Committee sees the Globalist heading in the future. The London Globalist continues to expand its outreach to try and attract all segments of the student population to join its ranks either as contributors or readers. This year we have launched a Business and Finance section, which has introduced special features pieces such as ‘Financial Affairs for Dummies’ and weekly articles from our Chief Financial Correspondent on socio-economic issues. The decision to launch this section of our website was to stimulate interest in our society from the predominant finance-orientated pupil section of the School and make students more comfortable with complex financial terminology. Our main purpose is to make our readers more financially literate. Another strategic initiative launched this year was the ‘Special Projects’ division, which is responsible for the coordination of the Globalist’s subsidiary initiatives such as the weekly Radio Show and ASKLSE videos. Additionally, the division aims to infuse creativity into Globalist projects. One such event was the ‘Great European Disaster’ movie screening followed by a panel debate, which was extremely well received by all those that attended. Towards the end of Lent Term, the London Globalist will welcome back its annual largest student-run International Affairs and Journalism Conference in the UK! The Conference will host panel debates, writing master-classes, keynote speeches, photo and essay competitions and much more - a spectacular event, which will engage the delegates in a variety of ways! This year’s theme will be ‘World Politics and Pop Culture’ that will focus on how the two themes are interlinked and the impact they have on one another. Moreover, we are looking at restoring the Global21 Network, which previously linked all the Globalist publications into one platform for coordination and made the initiative a truly international one. Overall, I am proud to say that it has been another successful year for the London Globalist with a wide range of content published on a daily basis on our website, readership numbers maintaining an impressive level and active engagement with the LSE through an increase in the number of events held and established collaborations with other societies on campus. Finally, it would be wrong of me not to give special thanks to my Committee who have driven all the initiatives forward with enthusiasm, competency and determination. Their efforts must be commemorated and without this team, the London Globalist would not have achieved the level of success that it currently enjoys. Best Wishes, NIKITA GANIN President – The London Globalist, 2015-2016 WWW.THELONDONGLOBALIST.ORG

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

Introduction from

THE EDITOR

Balance of power can be defined simplistically as the distribution of power between states in the international system. It spearheads a theory promoted by realist scholars of international relations about states attempting to maximize their personal power in order to improve their position in the global hierarchy. States can alter their position in the global balance of power through territorial acquisition, increasing the strength of their military, forming alliances, or improving their economy. Though states are continually attempting to balance each other, equilibrium is rarely reached and the international system is generally dominated by a hegemonic power. As the political environment changes, the balance of power—as a theoretical concept and an actuality—does too. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the balance of power revolved around the colonial empires of Great Britain, France, Spain, and Italy. During the first and second World War, the war time alliance of Britain, France, Russia, and the USA balanced the aggressive and ambitious Axis powers. When the Cold War began, the world was divided neatly between the opposing agendas of two superpowers who were competing to instill their own hegemonic rule over the international system. But after the break up of the USSR and the Soviet bloc, the balance of power was altered drastically again. Today, balance of power refers to the hegemonic rule of the United States of America supported by the rapidly weakening EU countries and contested by emerging powers such as the BRICS. The trouble brewing for decades in the Middle East has finally boiled over with Arab Spring and submerged the world into a constant state of crisis. The significant events of 2015 can only be explained through the concept of balance of power. Each development affects the precarious balance of power ever so slightly. The balance of power itself is threatening to shift from one of Western hegemony to the domination of oil interests, terrorism, global governance, and economic power. But as the year came to a close, we were left wondering when this culmination of developments will result in a concrete alteration of the balance of power. When will the dynamics of power politics change? How will the world be affected by this? This year’s magazine will explore “The Precarious Balance of Power” through a collection of engaging pieces which delve into the various aspects of the concept in different regions. Visit North America with Alfred Wong and Ryan Kelly who make predictions on how the upcoming American elections will affect the hegemon’s response to major issues. Consider the observations of Charlotte Hoiness, Abhishek Parasrampuria, Anushar Thanasekaran, and Pratinav Anil centered around the future of emerging Asian powers in the international system. On the other hand, Paula Grabosch and Marta Kozielska analyze the continued attempts of European states to combat their foes and retain influence. Of course any discussion of balance of power cannot ignore the alarming events that unfolded in the Middle East this year. Thus, Camilla Savanco and Mahmoud Elbanhawi do their best to explain the nuances of the many crises that surround the region and the way forward. Finally, Megan Erickson and Mylinh Dang discuss balance of power as a theoretical concept and how it has changed since its inception. We at the London Globalist present you with a comprehensive analysis of the changing dynamics of power politics in 2015 which we hope will leave you with predictions of your own. Join us as we attempt to determine how the precarious balance of power will be maintained or changed in the years to come. MALLIKA IYER Magazine Editor in Chief—The London Globalist, 2015-2016

QUANTIFYING THE

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

BALANCE OF POWER

design by GEORGINA FUNNELL

BALANCE OF POWER THROUGH THE AGES Is hegemony destroying the balance of power? BY MYLINH DANG

f you were a realist, you’d love talking about the balance of power.

the equilibrium of power is disrupted, which leads to consequences

Thucydides and his history of the Peloponnesian War can be

such as an arms race as seen in the Cold War period.

used to illustrate these realist principles: the tension that existed

between the Physics (inclination of humans to satisfy their wants) and the Laws (forces to constrain the antisocial laws that existed in the Physics). Balance of power is strongly linked to the geopolitics of a nation and their diplomatic relations or soft power as well as economic growth and military capability or hard power. The concept of balance of power is not designed to prevent war; instead, when a conflict breaks out, it actually serves as a vital mechanism to sustain the balance of power. War leads to change and will resolve

“The concept of balance of power is not designed to prevent war; instead, when a conflict breaks out, it actually serves as a vital mechanism to sustain the balance of power.”

Why is a balance of power created? Morgenthau believes that balance of power will emerge when states pursue national interests, maximize security and seek to increase their relative power. Martin Waltz suggests that when order is anarchical and states value survival, they will do anything to maintain the balance of power. Balance of power can be established, according to English School scholar Hedley Bull, due to the fact that states want to preserve the international system. A balance of power is a necessary tool in maintaining any kind of international order. Only when power is balanced have states any real freedom in the world; balances of power will only emerge and be sustained when states are aware of this and are willing to act and preserve the balance. Standing alone as a theory, the balance of power seems quite systematic and too abstract for one to fully comprehend. If we take a look at a large proportion of history, the balance of power fails in many ways. Does the balance exist at all? Scholars emphasize the importance of the concept itself with a plethora of explanations as to why and how states balance. According to the theory, states in a

the conflict. Events in 1914 started and ended with the result of a League of Nations- the blueprint for international cooperation today. The concept of the balance of power dictates that only force can fight against the effect of force. In an anarchical international system, stability and predictability occur only when the respective power capabilities of states are all in equilibrium. When one state suddenly experiences a relative gain in comparison to other states, whether by increasing its military power or expanding its alliances,

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

system with a vacuum of central authority would always want to maximize their goal of security and survival, and they will balance— internally and externally—to prevent a concentration of power, a phenomenon which occurs in a hegemonic system. If the main function of a balance of power is not to preserve peace, but rather to preserve the states system, then why and how do hegemonies form? Surely, a system that is hegemonic does not contain the balance of power, and that balancing is insignificant in understanding the

creation of non-hegemonic outcomes. Historical evidence does show that balance of power is needed to maintain an international order and cooperation. Conflict is vital in a change of balance of power. We can clearly observe the

“Only when power is balanced do states have any real freedom in the world; balances

effects of the outbreak of WWI as the European Balance of 1871

of power will only emerge and

was disintegrating and new alliances were formed. Before 1871,

be sustained when states are

the European system was relatively balanced. Then, German power

aware of this and are willing to

increased as a result of German industrialism and population growth. Tracking back to the period 1862 to 1871, Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had numerous victories over smaller wars of unification. This in turn allowed him to create a new German Empire in January 1871, proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles. This date marked a new nation with its own capital, currency and borders, with the first German Emperor King Wilhelm I. Unification of Germany was the main idea behind Bismarck’s foreign policy decisions and military tactics for a long time.

act and preserve the balance.” After the establishment of the German Empire, the centre of Europe was reshaped, and other European nations had to accept the fact that Germany was no longer a junior partner of Russia or Britain and would gain her status in the long term. Germany also had military advantage over the other great powers in Europe. However, Bismarck’s tactics shifted in a new direction as he was afraid that neighbouring states would pose as a threat to Germany after their defeat. The German Chancellor carefully planned his alliances and foreign policy in order to maintain Germany’s power and status on a global scale as well as to stabilize Europe. Bismarck cleverly diverted the great power enemies into fighting in their peripheral states – such as the Balkans, Central Asia and North Africa. The clash of power in the peripheries ensured Germany’s protection against the risks of a war and this approach to politics continued until 1914. The hatred and build-up of tension between Germany and France made it obvious to the Chancellor that an alliance with France seemed far- fetched and impossible because France would not forgive or negotiate with Germany after Germany took control over Alsace-Lorraine. Britain was also not a choice as their focus was not within Europe, but rather in their colonies, as they were operating in a “splendid isolation” foreign policy to maintain free trade within the British Empire. Only Austria-Hungary and Russia were left “on the plate” for Bismarck to choose from. 1873 marked the beginning of the Three Emperors League, which provided security and wartime support for the parties involved. Russia left these balanced powers soon after that due to disputes over the Balkan states with AustriaHungary and Britain as they also expressed interests in these regions. The League became the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-

BALANCE OF POWER

Hungary against Russia. In 1882, Italy joined Germany and Austria-

system was destructed when the two Peloponnesian Wars broke out.

Hungary to form the Triple Alliance mainly because Bismarck desired to completely unify the centre of Europe, to prevent a war with Italy over border issues as well as to use the Alliance as a defensive

“Balancing powers’ major

move against France. Britain, at the same time, occupied and took

pitfall is the problem of free-

control over Egypt, where France had significant influence, and this

riding and collective action.”

triggered tension between the two countries. European colonialism in the peripheral, smaller states did cause minor disputes; however, they did not have a direct effect on the outbreak of the war itself because the great powers in Europe could contain and manage these conflicts easily through diplomatic negotiations. The alliance system in Europe was much more problematic and had a domino effect later on when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, June 1914. Balance of power theory worked to the point where Europe was divided into different, opposing theaters and at the brink of war.

“Balance of power theory worked to the point where Europe was divided into different, opposing theaters and at the brink of war.” Failures in Balancing

(300-100 BCE), for much of the Third Centure BCE, three monarchies formed by the Greeks – Antigonid, Ptolemaic and Seleucid- have sustained a tripolar balance of power, which made them a lot more flexible than a bipolar system. This balance was to raise against Alexander the Great. However, the Ptolemaic Empire declined and created a bipolar system. Soon after, the Roman Empire was on the rise and the Seleucid Empire was also disappearing. There was a Greek hegemony and the Roman Empire needed to balance and fight against this threat, with only the help of intervention from a power outside the system such as other Greek states.

Rome

defeated the hegemon of Antigonid, but instead of re-balancing, the Roman Empire swallowed the entire system and became unipolar. Hegemonic powers were prevented at first, then were established again. Balancing powers’ major pitfall is the problem of free-riding and collective action. There was an undersupply of balancing externally using alliance system in both cases. The uncertainty about which

The Greek City-State System consisted of 1200 small city-states

power poses the greatest threat of hegemony will prevent efforts to

among which, Athens and Sparta were the most powerful in terms of

balance. Hegemonic powers are systematically difficult to prevent

military capabilities. The Persian Empire was the largest geopolitical

because when a rising power has the ability to conquer territories

actor established at the time. There was some sort of balancing

and when the system is already stable, no new great powers could

among Greek states confronting Persia. With unsuccessful invasions

emerge outside the system to re-balance. In theory, the balance of

of Athens in 492 and 490, balancing should have been implemented

power states that when power is cumulative, balancing is vital to

with the threat to counteract the threat from the Persian Empire.

prevent hegemony. However, in history and reality, when the power

Nevertheless, the Greeks remained divided and full of city-states. The

is highly cumulative, hegemony is inevitable. ■

Persian attack on mainland Greece failed, not because of balancing, but due to the difficulty of logistics. In 377 BC, the Greeks started the Delian League which acted as a balance against the Persians, and therefore, relations were peaceful for a while. Greek rivalries ultimately hindered the motivation to balance their powers and the

If we look at the Eastern Mediterranean System after the Wars

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

THE MADNESS OF A MAD WORLD Nuclear Brinkmanship, Deterrence, and the Balance of Power BY MEGAN ERICKSON

et us say we are in a rowboat, and we both do not know how

pushed over the brink of nuclear war would bring about mutual

to swim. You have an Aero bar. When you refuse to give me

assured destruction (MAD), or the complete annihilation of all parties

the candy bar, I start rocking the boat. I give the ultimatum

involved in the conflict, as well as collateral damage.

that you will either surrender the candy bar or I will tip the boat and we will both drown. Who will yield first? Here is another example of this game of chicken. We are driving directly towards each other and the accelerator on both vehicles is locked, but swerving to avoid collision means you lose the game. To ensure victory, I throw my steering wheel out the window. Will you swerve and accept failure? Here is the ultimate example of this high-stake game. We are both leaders of warring nations, and we both have nuclear weapons. I order that you surrender and concede to my demands, or I deploy

The balance of power among states is a precondition that

my nuclear weapons to destroy your main cities. In turn, you invert

makes brinkmanship a viable strategy of deterrence. If there was

my demand and force the same threat against me.

a robust imbalance of power, than the state of uncertainty that

Who will surrender first to avoid mutual assured destruction?

necessitates deterrence would not even exist because the stronger state would overpower the weaker. How can power then be defined? Hans Morganthau, the architect of balance of power theory, fails

These thought experiments provide the theoretical foundation

to fully elucidate the true definition of power. While power could

for nuclear brinkmanship, a strategy of deterrence that increases

be something palpable, it could likewise be something intangible. If

the risk of conflict escalation. According to Thomas Schelling,

power is a fluid concept, how can we qualify the definition of the

brinkmanship is the attempt to force a concession from the adversary

balance of power to make it more applicable to relevant issues?

by creating a shared risk that has the potential to spiral out of control

Balance of power is too vague a concept, and we must explore the

if one does not forfeit. Nuclear deterrence is particularly significant

other dynamics in play that contribute to nuclear brinkmanship and

when it comes to brinkmanship because any party willing to be

deterrence.

BALANCE OF POWER

The balance of power is commonly understood as the balance

power. Iran has no known weapons, yet the six world powers that

of military capabilities. Kenneth Waltz, the father of neorealism,

negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPOA) to reduce

claims that the international system is anarchic, and thus increased

Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity to produce material for nuclear weapons have

military capabilities make states more secure in the condition of

approximately a collective 7,625 nuclear warheads. If the balance of

chaos. The logic follows that greater military capabilities increase the

military capabilities theory could stand up on its own, it would imply

probability of a state to prevail in a conflict, bringing the situation to

that P5+1 would destroy Iran to ensure security and power.

its control. The technological conditions of MAD make this race for military dominance problematic. MAD relies not only on first-strike capabilities, but on second-strike capabilities and even third-strike capabilities, and so on. The ability to retaliate a nuclear strike risks the destruction of civilization.

Perhaps it is not exclusively the balance of military capabilities that make nuclear brinkmanship and deterrence a viable strategy, but instead it is the balance of resolve. Resolve is the maximum risk a state would be willing to bid in a conflict. Conflict becomes a competition of risk-taking, and the balance of resolve favors a state

This assumption is particularly significant in understanding

that is willing to bear more risk than the adversary. Deterrence then

one of todays most pressing security concerns: Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nuclear

depends not only on what a state can do given its capabilities, but it

capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2003 findings

depends on what it will do.

verified Iran was covertly pursuing a uranium-enrichment program, which could potentially produce enough weapon-grade uranium to fuel a nuclear warhead in two months.

The resolve to push the adversary to the brink of nuclear war and risking the probability of MAD indicates that a credible threat bears more coercive power than actual capabilities. The coercive

However, the balance of military capabilities leaves something

power of brinkmanship is found in the willingness of a state to share

to be desired if it is the sole understanding of the balance of

the risk of MAD if the situation spirals out of control. The ultimate

Comic by Leslie Gilbert Illingworth, The Daily Post

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

test of resolve is to take nuclear threats to the brink and face total annihilation.

Indeed, Iran is certainly winning the game. Perceptions of irrationality could explain the necessity of the JCPOA to monitor and decelerate Iran’s nuclear program despite nuclear dominance

“Conflict becomes a

of P5+1 and past demonstrations that indicate US resolve to carry

competition of risk-taking, and

out nuclear threats. Iran’s regime is often seen as irrational, fostering

the balance of resolve favors a state that is willing to bear more risk than the adversary.” Nonetheless, the balance of resolve fails to capture how a state demonstrates its commitment to a threat. The US has already

apocalyptic tendencies that welcome mayhem and chaos. However, perhaps this constructed identity is Iran’s calculated strategy in nuclear brinkmanship. Iran’s inclination to welcome nuclear Armageddon now makes it a legitimate player in the game because other powers are paralyzed in fear that Iran will push the threat of nuclear war over the brink. In acting mad, Iran controls the balance of fear, and consequently the balance of power.

demonstrated its resolve to use nuclear weapons with the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the US, nuclear war is

“Nonetheless, the balance

no longer unthinkable. But if this were truly the case, P5+1’s resolve

of resolve fails to capture

to carry out nuclear threats, as demonstrated by US precedent, would be enough to nullify the threat of Iran. As such, although resolve is valuable, it might as well be moot if it lacks credibility.

how a state demonstrates its commitment to a threat.”

The US has formerly demonstrated resolve, but now lacks credibility in threatening to use nuclear weapons. How then does a state demonstrate credibility and prove its resolve? Indeed, the party that controls the balance of fear consequently controls the game of brinkmanship and deterrence. Instability and conflict occur when the aggressor believes the adversary is weak in capability or resolve. As a signal of strength, the adversary must therefore demonstrate it is willing to turn to war. Inducing fear becomes a viable strategy to manipulate a risk-averse opponent that seeks to avoid war as an outcome.

In conclusion, our understanding of the balance of power cannot be straightforward or lack dimension. It is a multifaceted, complex, elaborate concept. We can only begin to understand the balance of power by its conceptual foundations: When a state manipulates the adversary’s fear to make threats of using its military capabilities more credible, it controls the balance of power. This interpretation of the balance of power allows us to analyze the risk of nuclear escalation. When confronted with a regime that seems irrational, perhaps the threat of risking nuclear destruction is a rational calculation to demonstrate resolve. When faced with such

This fear can be manipulated in various ways. One prominent technique to control fear is the rationality of irrationality paradox. Essentially, carrying out acts that seem irrational is in fact the most rational strategy to manipulate the adversary. If a state is crazy enough to even imply it will carry out something as fantastic as nuclear war, fear alone can paralyze the adversary and force it to

a player, a state must determine if the willingness to share the risk of nuclear war is actually credible. It certainly raises the question if a regime can be truly irrational, or if it is simply the best player in the game of brinkmanship and deterrence. Indeed, is any state mad enough to risk MAD? ■

capitulate to demands. If acting mad is a strategy to influence an outcome, than irrationality is a rational approach to the game of deterrence.

BALANCE OF POWER

THE MIDDLE EAST

THE EGYPTIAN ELEMENT Egyptian Leadership and Regional Balance of Power BY MAHMOUD ELBANHAWI

ince January 2011 power in Egypt has been switching

him. With the Iran Deal, the crisis in Yemen, and the civil war in

between the hands of two major players, the Military with

Syria, and recently the more direct tensions between Iran and the

Mubarak, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF),

Saudis, building a strong regional coalition to assist in these conflicts

and General Sisi, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Another way to label these actors is based on their stance in international politics, with the Military traditionally leaning towards Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, and the Muslim Brotherhood leaning towards Qatar, and Iran to a certain extent. With the largest standing army in the region, the largest population, and unmatched cultural exports (whether through Al-Azhar, the movie and music industries, or the sheer amount of publishers), Egypt is an important ally to maintain for the Gulf, and potentially a great addition for Iran, especially during the current regional crisis, from Yemen to Syria. It comes as no surprise that when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt it sent shockwaves through the country’s neighbouring monarchies. Morsi was the first Egyptian president to visit Iran after the Ayatollah took power and he moved towards normalizing relations with the Islamic Republic. Unsurprisingly, Gulf States (excluding Qatar) did all that was in their power to remove

is crucial if the Gulf states wish to maintain the status quo. Saudi Arabia is attempting to lead the way with coalition strikes against the allegedly Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and its efforts to create a coalition for Muslim countries to “coordinate” their efforts against terrorist groups.

“With the largest standing army in the region, the largest population, and unmatched cultural exports (whether through Al-Azhar, the movie and music industries, or the sheer amount of publishers), Egypt is an important ally to maintain for the Gulf, and potentially a great addition for Iran, especially during the current regional crisis, from Yemen to Syria.”

THE MIDDLE EAST

As a direct result of this desire to build a strong coalition, Gulf

that may never see the light is the National Roads Project which was

States are pumping billions of dollars into the Egyptian economy to

initially set to cost Egypt $13bn, and be ready by September 2015.

keep it afloat, and maintain the stability of the Egyptian government

This negligence for the country’s infrastructure may have culminated

at this critical moment, which will shape the region for the foreseeable

in the flooding of Alexandria in November. Perhaps General Sisi

future. Sheikh Mohamed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum reaffirmed the

believes that Egypt’s strategic position in the region shields him from

importance of Egypt’s stability and security for that of the region

the demands of his Khaleeji allies. He believes that even if he leaves

when he was in Sharm Elsheikh earlier last year to discuss a new

the Gulf States’ demands for better governance unheeded there isn’t

$12.5 billion aid package was promised to Egypt by the UAE, KSA,

much that they would be able to do.

and Kuwait. In total, over $20 billion have been pledged to Egypt since the removal of President Morsi in 2013. However, without undergoing any meaningful reform, Egypt has already burned through most of the aid and depleted its foreign currency reserves. In addition, the country hasn’t begun any structural reforms, cracked down on corruption, or any of the much-needed projects to upgrade its decaying energy, transport, and telecommunications infrastructures that would help the country stand on its own feet.

“Perhaps General Sisi believes that Egypt’s strategic position in the region shields him from the demands of his Khaleeji allies.”

On the contrary, General Sisi has been using the Gulf States as

his personal ATM to undertake “national” projects, such as digging the

Ironically, Egypt’s position might just be General Sisi’s undoing.

New Suez Canal to boost nationalism and his own “Nasser complex”.

Over the past two years, General Sisi has proven to be a highly

The contract for this project like many others has been given to the

unreliable ally for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Military, which in turn hires foreign sub-contractors; another project

Their investment in him came with the condition of fixing Egypt’s

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

decaying economy, infrastructure, as well as its security situation,

Gulf monarchies. If an unexpected change were to occur it would

cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates,

spell out the end of the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian air-campaign against the Houthis. This realization on

“Instead, Egypt is constantly on

the part of the Emiratis might explain the resurgence of Gen. Shafiq

the brink of economic collapse,

who is currently in Abu Dhabi. He has been an outspoken critique of

Sinai is festering with terrorist groups who are openly at war with Saudi Arabia, and

Gen. Sisi, and he might be a potential alternative in the eyes of Sisi’s current supporters, both domestically, and internationally. The current political crisis in Egypt shows how the power struggles between regional powers can directly influence domestic

the opposition is markedly

politics, and how domestic politics can tip off the very delicate

returning to the Egyptian

balance of power in the region. The current distribution of power in

political scene even with all of

the region is still in favor of the Saudis; however, with growing dissent in Egypt, half of Yemen controlled by the Houthis, Iran’s sanctions

the government’s best efforts

being dropped, and Assad still in control in Syria (or what will remain

to completely suppress any

of it), the Kingdom will have to tread carefully. The same way Sisi’s

semblance of a civil society”

ascent to power was “facilitated” by the UAE and Saudi Arabia, it is not unlikely to see other movements contesting him due to his lack of vision and fiscal responsibility as well as his mindlessly brutal security campaign. Both his allies, and many Egyptians are disillusioned, and

and supporting them in their regional conflicts. Strong Egyptian leadership with renewed and cemented relations with its wealthy benefactors was probably what the Saudi, and Emirati leaderships, were expecting out of this costly deal. Instead, Egypt is constantly on the brink of economic collapse, Sinai is festering with terrorist groups

with decreasing support on their part, and constant encouragement from Qatar to their local allies (General Sisi’s enemies), the table may have turned. ■

who are openly at war with Saudi Arabia, and the opposition is

“As a direct result of this desire

markedly returning to the Egyptian political scene even with all of the

to build a strong coalition, Gulf

government’s best efforts to completely suppress any semblance of a civil society. Egypt today has more political prisoners than any other time in its modern history, with the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights estimating the number of arrests to be somewhere around 50,000. This unreliability is perhaps the single biggest threat to Gulf interests in Egypt. It is a potential indicator for an imminent change in leadership. Growing dissent, international condemnation, and

States are pumping billions of dollars into the Egyptian economy to keep it afloat, and maintain the stability of the Egyptian government at this critical moment, which

domestic security failure expose the regime’s clay feet. It is highly

will shape the region for the

unlikely that if a change in leadership were to take place that a pro-

foreseeable future.”

gulf leader would take the baton. In the eyes of many (the public and the political elite alike), the General is very closely associated with the

THE MIDDLE EAST

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL: AN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS EXPLOSION? Will the P5+1 Nuclear Deal result in actual change in relations between the US and Middle Eastern Countries? BY CAMILLA SAVANCO

A 18

s one British MP noted during the parliamentary debate

the second largest country in the Middle East. By doing so, however,

on the Iranian nuclear deal last July, accords like these

it has further underlined key differences between the two actors, as

need to be monitored over years, not months. For now,

Iran was given intensive coverage in the media for the first time since

the deal negotiated by the P5 members of the UN Security Council

1979. But, with the threat of Daesh hanging over the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Westâ&#x20AC;?, the US

and the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the mediation of Germany and

seems prepared to overlook these differences if Iran starts acting as

the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

a stabilizer in the region. The real question is whether it will. The deal

has just made a dent in the wall of mistrust separating the US and

has undoubtedly soured the American relationship with Israel, which

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

of its sanctions much sooner than stated in Vienna, showing how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action promises to work towards the normalization of US-Iran relations. It may take a while, as the Americans are in no rush to forget the drawn-out hostage crisis of 1979-81 but the potential for progress exists, especially once billions of dollars unfreeze and businesses will want to invest in Iran. Finger Pointing in US-Iran Relations At the same time, businesses will not only face investment risks but they will have to watch the safety of their employees under the régime, as Iran boasts the highest execution rate in the world and holds a number of foreigners behind bars, including American citizen Jason Rezaian. His trial behind closed doors was a major source of tension during JCPOA negotiations, with Kerry reiterating the wish to see him released every single time the parties met. Until this happens, the path of dialogue opened by the Nuclear Deal will remain volatile and yield limited results. White House on the Iran Deal

mostly perceives it as a slap in the face. While some commentators have suggested that existential fear, coupled with Saudi wariness of Iran, is likely to spark a conventional weapons race, closer analysis reveals otherwise.

Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also points to the presence of hardliners in the Iranian régime. Although they cooperated with current moderate government over the Nuclear Deal, who is to say they will not go back to seeking nuclear weapons once the pact lapses? Iran could legally start breaking its promises

US-Iran Relations and the Dent in the Wall of

even before 2030, as Robert Casey, Senator for Pennsylvania, notes

Mistrust

that the agreement is designed in such a way as to become less

With no threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, there is no danger

stringent in later years. In the meantime, the Republic could maintain

of confrontation. In the wake of the War in Iraq, this is the American

its ties with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or,

mentality, as expressed by both President Obama and Secretary of

worse still, use American money to fund these extremist groups.

State John Kerry. And while Iranian assurances to the contrary had

Of course, one must not be ingenuous but, in this case, American

previously led the world to conclude that it was building a bomb,

allegations are chiefly serving to create a new spiral of mistrust.

American foreign policy decision makers, among others, can breathe

As noted by British Foreign Minister Philipp Hammond, President

a sigh of relief now that President Rouhani has pledged to work

Rouhani is a reformer who signed the Deal out of need to build new

under the supervision of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency.

infrastructure in Iran. This is what the bulk of the total $150 billion

Complete transparency should effectively ensure that Iran

will go towards, rather than the abovementioned terrorism, which

upholds its commitments to enrich uranium by a maximum of

honestly Iran has had no problem funding without American aid.

3.67%, reduce its stockpile of U-235 to 300kg and cease enriching

Those who argue that this funding will soar with American aid must

plutonium for at least fifteen years. But this is just the beginning.

consider that it is against the Iranian government’s interest to make

As soon as Iran started decommissioning centrifuges in the Natanz

non-state actors in the region stronger than itself. Critics who warn

and Fordow plants, the Obama administration offered to lift a part

that “…when you make a deal with the devil, prepare to be burnt…”

THE MIDDLE EAST

should note that Rouhani will probably go no further than allowing

of weapons to Gulf Cooperation Countries in 2014 alone. One

his people to continue referring to the US as the “Great Satan” to

explanation could be the clashes in Lebanon between the Iranian-

appease hardliners.

backed March 8th coalition and the March 14th coalition supported

US, Iran, and the Billion Dollar Question: Syria

by the US and Saudi Arabia. Secondly, given that in 2004 Congress passed a law agreeing to uphold Israel’s military superiority in the

In fact, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has repeatedly asserted that the government is against Daesh. Reports speak of daily Iranian

region and keeps supplying Israel with the latest F35 planes, there would be no point in competing in the first place.

strikes on ISIL but Teheran is reluctant to become too involved, given its defence expenditure is only 1/5 of its neighbours’ military budgets. More decisive action would surely wipe away pro-terrorist allegations and bolster American support for the Nuclear Deal and improved relations with Iran. In addition, former US ambassador to

It is also clear that countries in the so-called “Greater Middle East”, such as Afghanistan, simply cannot afford an arms race. The latter is indeed desperate for aid and will probably accept any developmental scheme proposed by Iran with foreign funds. In this

Egypt Frank Wisner suggests that Iran might give up its support of the Assad regime if it is presented with other options to maintain a presence in Syria. After Vienna, talks on Syria are a possibility and this would give the US government more flexibility to try to resolve the Syrian question in a more beneficial manner. Netanyahu’s Lack of Flexibility The Israeli Prime Minister immediately opposed the P5+1 Deal on grounds that it will inevitably lead to war. Translated into Israeli jargon, it is unacceptable because it gives legitimacy to Iran and puts pressure on Israel to renounce its nuclear weapons as well, as hinted Comic by Dary Cagle, The Cagle Post

by the Egyptian statement following the conclusion of the accord. President Obama counterattacked this stance by noting that Prime Minister Netanyahu is getting his facts wrong. This immediately

sense, the Iranian Nuclear Deal might even indirectly improve US-

cooled relations between the two administrations, especially after

Afghanistan relations. In summary, it promises to actually better

Netanyahu joined forces with American Republicans to criticize the

US relations with Middle Eastern countries where possible and pave

deal. Despite denials on both sides, a poll of September 2015 found

the way to new, acceptable compromises in the region, without

that 52% of Americans interviewed thought US-Israel relations were

completely ruining old friendships. In other words, the P5+1 Nuclear

deteriorating. In reality, Israel’s position in the Middle East is too vital

Deal is poised to be exactly the “win-win” solution it has been called.

for the US to drive a wedge into a strategic partnership that is merely

Had the US not deemed it a prospect for improvement, it would

starting to see fissures. The same goes for the US and Saudi Arabia,

never have signed and ratified it. ■

where the monarchy also views the JCPOA accords with suspicion. A Conventional Arms Race: A New Scenario? It is however incorrect to hypothesize that mistrust of Iran will spark a conventional arms race in the area, for two simple reasons. Firstly, it is already happening: the US supplied $64 billion worth

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

THE UNITED STATES

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU’RE ELECTING The next American president’s China policy and its impact on the US-China balance of power BY ALFRED WONG

mong the greatest of the foreign policy challenges facing

the 2012 Chen Guangcheng incident where she supported protecting

the next US president, whoever he or she may be, is China.

the Chinese human rights lawyer despite risking angering China.

The manifold tensions and interdependencies between the

US and China serves as the background for defining the bilateral

“At the same time, however,

relationship of this century. It is thus critical to understand the

she is the only candidate who

differences in how the five candidates with a genuine chance of

highlights the opportunities for

becoming the next US president view China, through their previous statements and actions relating to China as a foreign policy issue.

cooperation and engagement with China”

While it is difficult to disaggregate campaign rhetoric from policy statements, the topics that each candidate focuses on are reflective of how they view China and what they will emphasise in their management of the US-China balance of power. Hilary Secretary

Former

State

China cooperation is necessary to achieve “effective efforts against

and

climate change”. Moreover, under pressure from the Democratic left,

Democratic Senator for New

Clinton has changed her position on various issues including the

York

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is widely seen as the core of

As the former top US diplomat as well as a fixture of national politics

highlights the opportunities for cooperation and engagement with China. In the first Democratic candidates’ debate, she stated that US-

Clinton, of

At the same time, however, she is the only candidate who

the ‘pivot’. While Clinton supported and indeed helped negotiate TPP as Secretary of State, she denounced it in October 2015.

for over two decades, Clinton has

Forecast: Clinton as president will likely continue Obama’s

taken numerous hardline stances on

external balancing, ‘pivot to Asia’ approach. This means closer

China, beginning with her landmark

ties with US allies in Asia, which may be limited by Democratic

1995 speech in Beijing championing women’s rights. As Secretary of

unwillingness to actively lead, as seen in the TPP case. Clinton is

State, she set out Obama’s so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy. Clinton

also seen as more hawkish than Obama, and may take a harder

pointedly supports closer US military and diplomatic ties with its

line against China on security and human rights issues. At the

Asian allies and multilateral Asian approaches to resolve disputes

same time, she will pursue opportunities to cooperate with China

like the South China Sea. Clinton’s biography Hard Choices also

on areas of mutual interest, such as climate change and nuclear

showcases her human rights record, devoting an entire chapter to

nonproliferation.

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

economic interdependence and worsen bilateral relations. Sanders’ strident opposition to free trade and to status quo US-China trade relations will presumably define his approach to China. However, it is unclear whether Sanders will be able or indeed willing to actively restrict US-China trade relations. A Sanders White House will also draw greater attention to human rights violations and lack of democracy in China, such as in Tibet. These policies will doubtless draw Beijing’s ire at what it sees as interference in Chinese domestic affairs, and reduce the possibility of US-China cooperation to defuse Bernie Sanders, Democratic Senator for Vermont

regional tensions or to act on areas of mutual interest.

A self-described democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders has a strong and consistent left-wing stance on most issues, including China. Sanders’ top priority on China has been trade, with human rights and democracy as a close second. Sanders views the current US free trade policy as “disastrous” for Americans. As Congressman for Vermont’s at-large congressional district, he voted several times against liberalising trade with China. Sanders has also charged China with unfair trade practices, and has proposed imposing a currency manipulation fee on China. Sanders is also critical of China’s military buildup and record

Donald Trump, Republican businessman

on human rights and democracy. He voted in 2005 to deter arms

Donald Trump’s dark horse 2016 candidacy for president has

transfers by foreign countries to China, and cosponsored a resolution

drawn significant and sustained support from Republican voters,

condemning China’s abuses of human rights and suppression of

despite his provocative rhetoric. Trump’s statements on China

religious freedoms.

focus overwhelmingly on the negative consequences of status quo

“Sanders’ China policy will centre on trade and the Chinese domestic situation, which is likely to reduce US-China economic interdependence and worsen bilateral relations.” Forecast: Sanders’ China policy will centre on trade and the Chinese domestic situation, which is likely to reduce US-China

US-China trade relations. Trump has promised to declare China a currency manipulator and end Chinese violations of US companies’ intellectual property rights. He also wants to end China’s unfair trade advantages vis-à-vis the US, including China’s low environmental and labour protection standards and export subsidies. Trump repeatedly emphasises that the US is being harmed economically by its current trade relationship with China. On non-economic matters, Trump notes on his website that as president, he will strengthen the US military presence in the East and South China Seas.

“Trump repeatedly emphasises that the US is being harmed economically by its current trade relationship with China.” THE UNITED STATES

Forecast: As president, Trump’s China policy will likely

Forecast: A Rubio presidential administration will likely

prioritise amending US-China trade relations, as well as a more

intensify and harden the existing American approach to China,

aggressive US response to Chinese assertiveness. Like Sanders,

specifically on defence, cybersecurity and human rights and

Trump’s protectionist attitude towards US trade with China will

democracy. Rubio’s various proposals generally represent a hardline

undermine one of the strongest factors underpinning the peaceful

balancing approach to China, encompassing both internal (higher

management of bilateral relations despite various US-China disputes

military spending, stronger cybersecurity measures) and external

in other areas. Trump’s explicit promise to militarily balance against

balancing (closer military ties with US allies). Unlike Trump and

China’s actions to assert its sovereignty over large parts of the South

Sanders, however, Rubio has not made US-China trade reform the

China Sea will further worsen bilateral relations. A more aggressive

centrepiece of his agenda, instead aiming to use regional trade

US military response to China’s actions in Asia is also likely to backfire

agreements like TPP to indirectly achieve this aim. This may be a

and escalate the US-China conflict over the security dilemma China

less provocative way to address this issue without jeopardising

poses to the US. Finally, it should be cautioned that Trump’s lack of

US-China economic interdependence. Finally, while Rubio’s China

political experience and record of outrageous statements means that

policy appears similar to Clinton’s, Rubio has explicitly condemned

any analysis of Trump’s foreign policy should be taken with strong

Obama’s and Clinton’s cooperation with China on areas of mutual

reservations.

interest, including climate change and the Iran nuclear deal. Marco Rubio, Republican Senator for Florida Despite his

first

still

term

being as

senator,

Marco Rubio’s candidacy is increasingly centred on his expertise in foreign affairs. Rubio sits on the Senate Foreign Relations

and

Intelligence

Committees, and is co-chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC). He has also commented in detail on specific issues regarding China, including China’s Taiwan policy and its new two-child policy. Rubio set out the three principles of his China policy in a speech in August: first, increasing US military strength both through higher defence spending and through closer ties with Asian allies; second, eliminating China’s unfair trade advantage through trade agreements like TPP and combating Chinese cybercrime and IP violations; and third, actively support democracy and human rights in China. As co-Chairman of CECC, which monitors human rights and the rule of law in China, Rubio has also repeatedly condemned the Chinese government’s repression of human rights and democracy.

Ted Cruz, Republican Senator for Texas Despite being a freshman senator, Ted Cruz has gained national notoriety with his open political battles against Washington politicians of both parties, which shut down the federal government in 2013. On China, Cruz’s support of human rights and democracy in China is seen in his three separate attempts between 2013-15 to rename the plaza in front of the Chinese embassy in Washington DC in honour of Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner currently imprisoned by Beijing. Cruz has also stated in the first Republican debate in August that “China is waging cyber warfare against America”. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has also sponsored amendments to improve US intelligence on Chinese cyber capabilities and to reaffirm the

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

US commitment to arming Taiwan. Finally, Cruz has repeatedly

and balances to their ambitions from Congress and civil society,

criticised the persecution of Christians and the practice of forced

they usually come to see the world as it is, with its myriad shades

abortions in China.

of grey, from behind the Resolute desk. More importantly, the US-

Forecast: President Cruz, who is fast becoming the flag-bearer of the Republican Partyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s religious and social conservative wing, is likely to prioritise human rights, democracy and religious freedom in China more than any other candidate. What exactly he will do as president in support of these goals, beyond symbolic actions and rhetoric, is unclear. In any case, such action will antagonise China and complicate US-China cooperation on other issues. Cruz will also focus on balancing the military and cyber threat from China, in cooperation with American allies in Asia. Again, this will likely escalate mutual tensions and intensify the security dilemma that a rising China creates.

China balance of power depends on many other factors as well. The US economy may be recovering, but American military capabilities are being constricted by sequestration and increasingly focused on the Middle East. China is more and more confident in utilising its financial and political influence globally, and is rapidly building up its military, but its economy and financial system is undergoing a volatile rebalancing. So why is it important to know how the different presidential candidates see China? Because leadership does matter, over the medium- and long-term. A President Sanders or Trump will likely try to make trade with China fairer, diminishing trade flows in the process. A President Cruz or Sanders is more likely to confront China on human rights and democracy at the expense of other

The 2016 election will bring a new American president, but will it herald an immediate sea change in the US-China balance of power? No. One of the axioms of American foreign policy is that any change will be gradual. Not only do presidents face checks

issues than Rubio or Clinton. Whoever the next president is, their views on the US-China relationship will be critical to the bilateral and global balance of power in the future. â&#x2013;

THE UNITED STATES

POLITICIZING THE CRISIS How will the next American president respond to the Refugee Crisis? BY RYAN J. KELLY

s more and more refugees run for their lives to places

alone in proposing senseless policies that would prevent refugees

with mixed feelings about their arrival, 2016 candidates

from entering the country. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have stated that

in the United States remain divided over several key issues

the United States should only accept Christian refugees from Syria;

of bringing migrants in. How many will come? How will they be

a plan that truly lacks any thought or promise. Even if such a plan

vetted? Where will they go? Will a terrorist sneak in as a refugee?

was possible, it completely rejects the values that the country was

These questions have dominated the debate, and the answers will be remarkably different depending on who wins the election. PostParis and San Bernardino attacks, fear-mongering has run rampant across the United States, with GOP candidates contributing heavily to the injection of panic into American society on a day to day basis. Look no further than the recent comments made by Mr. Donald Trump, the leader of the GOP pack who just proposed a plan to disallow any foreign Muslims from entering the United States, which would be damning for most of the refugees trying to enter the country. This plan, thankfully, prompted Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to set the record straight that this type of policy is not what the

founded on; values that these candidates claim to hold dearest in

Republican Party stands for. Trump, as if it should surprise anyone,

order to “return the country to greatness.” These plans do nothing

refuses to back down from his words. Trump is unfortunately not

but politicize the crisis and prove how out of touch the Republican candidates are from reality.

‘Post- Paris and San Bernardino attacks, fear-mongering has run rampant across the United States, with GOP candidates contributing heavily to the injection of panic into American society on a day to day basis.”

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proposed that the U.S. accept upwards of 65,000 refugees, claiming that the United States has to play their part in the worst refugee crisis since World War II (CBS 20/9). Currently, the Obama Administration plans to accept 10,000 refugees over the next year, 85,000 in the next fiscal year, and 100,000 in the one after that (The Economist, 17/10). Without too much focus on the precise numbers, one thing is certain in this scenario: refugees will be accepted into the United States. These refugees are going through the most intense vetting process compared to anyone trying to enter the United States, a process

that could take as long as two years. Once the process has officially

Many Republicans tried to use the Paris and San Bernardino

cleared refugees to enter the United States, they are to be relocated

attacks as an argument to not let Syrian refugees into the country.

throughout the country in a number of cities. Governors have recently

Because the election season is heating up, candidates have to

come out to say they are not accepting any refugees, a proposal

separate themselves from the pack by proposing provocative

that they have no legal authority to implement. Considering how

policies that exacerbate the narrative of fear that the country is on

large the United States is, it is illogical and senseless to think that is

the verge of being attacked at a moment’s notice. Since the Obama

it “unsustainable and dangerous” to accept even a small amount of

administration and Democratic candidates support the accepting of

refugees. Since 9/11, the United States has successfully accepted and

refugees, it is not in their political interest to agree with anything

resettled 745,000 refugees from the Iraq war, only two of which were

coming from the left, which completely misses the severity of the

arrested on suspicious activity of aiding Al-Qaida (The Economist,

crisis itself. The xenophobic rhetoric coming from the GOP camps

17/10.) This statistic has been brushed under the rug by people claiming that it is impossible to vet, accept, and resettle refugees, only further proving how prejudiced this debate has become. The Obama Administration does not go into this crisis response with clean hands. There is no doubt that key political decisions to delegitimize Assad’s regime in Syria have played a huge role in this crisis taking place. A criticism raised has been just how long the

“The Obama Administration does not go into this crisis response with clean hands. There is no doubt that key political decisions to

vetting process for refugees can take. Of course it is important to

delegitimize Assad’s regime in

make sure that those coming into the country are clean from any

Syria have played a huge role

type of radicalization, but the average time is a huge concern for

in this crisis taking place. “

refugees living day to day in fear of being killed. If elected, the Clinton Administration will need to take the necessary steps to speed up the process enough where the proper vetting is still done and refugees are kept out of danger. Obviously, this is a remarkably difficult task to accomplish, and will certainly require significant attention if it is to be successful.

is nothing more than an attempt to scare American citizens into believing that we are constantly on the brink of an attack on our way of life. None of this is indicative of what the United States should be standing for, and it is unfortunate that Trump can grab headlines

THE UNITED STATES

around the world simply for being a lunatic. The GOP and Democrats are divided over countless domestic and foreign issues that progress almost seems impossible. The politicized refugee crisis is no different than any of these issues,

a chance against Clinton. Winning the US Presidency requires serious momentum at the right time, and for Trump to run as an Independent would crush any momentum the Republican Party would take into the caucuses and beyond.

and has truly shaped the discourse over the last few weeks from all

Overall, if simply juxtaposing the policies coming from the

candidates. If there is anything positive to take from this discourse,

Clinton and Trump camps, election results could have vastly different

“If there is anything positive to take from this discourse, it is that most candidates are slowly coming together to reject Donald Trump’s xenophobic and racist rhetoric.” it is that most candidates are slowly coming together to reject

consequences for Syrian refugees (and, in a President Trump

Donald Trump’s xenophobic and racist rhetoric. It unfortunately

scenario, potentially for Muslims as well). Hillary Clinton has already

took months to do so, but fellow candidates and Republicans are

called for an increase of the number of refugees the United States will

realizing how serious Trump’s campaign has become. A big fear for

accept, which is essentially a continuation of the current plan from

the party is that if he is denied the nomination, he could run as an

the Obama Administration. As for Donald Trump, it is exceedingly

Independent candidate. This bold move would be devastating for

difficult for me to fathom such a policy that would not only

the party in the 2016 election, and the Democratic candidate would

displace the refugees that have already successfully been through

certainly be guaranteed to become the next president. The balance of

the vetting process, but disallow Muslims from entering the United States altogether. It is truly one of the most inhumane statements I have heard to date, and will no doubt have severe consequences for how the United States is viewed on an international scale. While it has been problematic for the United States to lead the world on certain issues, this is not one of them. This is not the first instance of people running for their lives to seemingly unwelcoming countries. Countries around the world have failed to act in a unified manner when these events occur, and now there is a chance to help refugees who face death if they cannot be accepted anywhere else. Any type of progress made by the Obama Administration would be derailed

Comic by Joe Heller, Green Bay Press-Gazette

by a Republican president in 2016, which would further politicize the crisis. It is unfortunately expected for Democrats and Republicans

power would be significantly thrown off in the United States if Trump

to be divided on critical issues when lives are at stake. The time is

continues to hold enough support to stay relevant. Republican

now for the “global force for good” to step up and play their part in

voters, many of whom support Trump (at least according to almost

addressing a problem they exacerbated from day one. ■

any active poll), would truly be split if he runs as an Independent candidate. Because of the voting base being split, whoever the Republican candidate who wins the nomination would not stand

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

THE

TIPPING SCALE

The old world order dominated by American hegemony and liberal values is rapidly losing ground to a new balance of power between forces of terrorism, emerging states, and economic interests.

ASIA

THE RISE OF CHINA: A THREAT TO A LIBERAL WORLD ORDER? An inside look at China’s dynamic growth and the misperception that it directly threatens the West BY CHARLOTTE HOINESS

espite its recent economic slowdown, China continues

and tight political control is combined with economic liberalization,

to rise in global prominence and does not seem to be

conflicting with liberal doctrines of free market and limited state

stopping anytime soon. With 1.376 billion people living

intervention. Furthermore, China has augmented its economic

across its vast territory, China not only has the world’s largest

influence in Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela and has purportedly

population, but also the world’s largest military force and the

engaged in commercial relations with African dictators, including

world’s second largest economy. In fact, by 2050 China will have

Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Developing countries could potentially

surpassed the US as the world’s largest economy. As China continues

look to China as a source of non-Western financial aid, as Chinese

to rise, fears of the threat it poses to establishing a ‘liberal world

capitalism promises less financial engagement and does not require

order’ rise with it. The concept of a ‘liberal word order’ envisages

political reform. Whether this impedes democratization and shifts

an international system in which states promote liberal economic

the global balance of power away from the West is largely unlikely.

policies and political systems, namely democracy. Whilst this has

China’s motives are principally commercial and Beijing does not

yet to be achieved, concerns that China threatens the potential

directly try to export its political model; its economic and political

establishment of this through its interventionist in economic policy,

policies are separate. By enhancing China’s position in the global

foreign policy and military expansionism, have mounted. Although it

economy, the ruling party aims to legitimate its control domestically,

is unlikely that China will adopt extensive liberal reforms or decisively

not to deliberately diminish the Western bloc or the appeal of its

contribute to the development of the liberal world order, China’s

brand.

rise will not directly threaten this phenomenon. The country plays a largely passive role in the international community, is increasingly interconnected with liberal markets and has adopted some policies of economic liberalization. Ultimately, China’s rise is multidimensional and should not be interpreted as a hostile challenge to American or Western supremacy. Whilst Beijing’s policy is not decisively hostile, it is important to acknowledge the prevailing challenges it poses to Western liberal principles. The Chinese economy is not completely liberalized and state intervention is still prominent. Government control of industries

“Although it is unlikely that China will adopt extensive liberal reforms or decisively contribute to the development of the liberal world order, China’s rise will not directly threaten this phenomenon.”

ASIA

Politically, China’s foreign policy is often perceived as relatively antagonistic towards liberal states and an attempting to undermine their authority. China supported Iran’s repressive government and vetoed intervention in Syria. The government has also been accused of engaging in cyber espionage against the United States and Canada; however tying this to the government is ‘nearly impossible.’ Whilst these actions are obstructive, they do unilaterally obstruct foreign policy aims of liberal democracies. Militarily, the government has been modernizing its forces. This year the Chinese defense budget will rise by 10.1 percent to approximately $145 billion, making it the second-biggest military spender worldwide. However, this is minuscule compared to the 2011 American defense budget of $664 billion. China’s military aggrandizement cannot be deemed

Design by Viktoria Hwang

as antagonistic towards ‘liberal principles’, due to the comparatively

actor, not a global power and will never ‘rule to world.’ It is largely an

extensive nature of American military power. The supposed model

isolated power that lacks close allies and is formally involved but not

of liberal democracy spent 3.5 percent of its GDP on military

integrated in a community of nations.’ Even amongst its strongest

expenditures versus 2.1 percent in China. In fact, Chinese military

allies, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea, relations are tenuous. The

development has largely been aimed at deterring US power in the

main goal of Chinese foreign policy is simply to increase domestic

region, not necessarily on a global scale. Military expenditures have

economic development, and pursue passive diplomacy; China lacks

not attempted to reach a level that would directly challenge the US.

any cultural power. Consequently, if China cannot be perceived as a global power, it cannot pose a significant threat to liberal world order.

“China actually benefits from the liberal world order, as this has allowed it to expand its market through trade.”

Ultimately, China’s increasing influence does not have to trigger

In challenging the development of a liberal order, China has

a hegemonic transition and for that reason should not be seen as a

too much to lose. Despite indicators of American and Chinese

threat. China actually benefits from the liberal world order, as this

divergence on regional issues, a cessation of ties between Beijing

has allowed it to expand its market through trade. The government’s

and Washington seems unlikely. Given China’s growing economic

main goal is to uphold domestic order, and the consequent impact

interdependence and trade relations with the US, the regime appears

of its rise internationally is not absolute. Additionally, China does

to be unwilling to bear the economic and social costs of mobilizing

not possess the capabilities to reorder international economic and

the economy to balance seriously against American power. In 2002

security institutions. As David Shambaugh contends China is a global

the US was China’s second largest trading partner, accounting for

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

approximately 16 % of China’s total trade. American Foreign Direct

have the status of a global power. Consequently China cannot be

Investment is critical to sectors of the Chinese economy. Recent

seen as a threat to liberal world order, due its status as a global actor and because of the continuing influence of the US. To allow for China’s peaceful ascent, the country should be regarded as an opportunity more than a threat. Its rise could lead to more economic competition, more investment and economic rebalancing. Thus, approaching China as a partner instead of an enemy will be far more effective in the eventual development of a liberal world order. China’s policies should not be viewed as a direct threat against liberalization, as they are primarily driven by economic motives and the desire to reinforce domestic legitimacy. American hegemony in the international political sphere is likely to be sustained alongside China’s relatively weak foreign policy

government intervention in the Chinese equity market was not intended to shock American markets and had far more averse effects on emerging than developed markets. Long term it is unlikely that the CCP would pursue non-collaborative economic policy with the US, as this would be more costly than beneficial.

and diplomatic status. The country is far too dependent on the US to actively challenge its role and ultimately does not have the capabilities to do so. China might not reform its internal politics in favor of more liberal political policies, but its rise does not threaten the development of a liberal world order. ■

Lastly, the continuing prominence of the US should not be undermined. The US still has the world’s largest economy, with a higher military budget than the combined military spending of its next 15 competitors. Regardless of its form, capitalism is still spreading. This demonstrates the continued development of liberal economic policy. Symbolically, the US plays a crucial role, as the principal leader of international foreign policy. The US upholds the liberal vision, not necessarily in practice but in principal, through the spread of liberal ideas such as human rights, fair society and economic and political freedoms. Contrary to China, the US does

“The main goal of Chinese foreign policy is simply to increase domestic economic development, and pursue passive diplomacy; China lacks any cultural power.”

ASIA

THE GREAT FALL OF CHINA Exploring the global ramifications of the Chinese Financial Crisis BY ABHISHEK PARASRAMPURIA

hen countries face an issue or two they are generally

Index (which had already fallen 30% between mid-June and Early July

resolved by quick intermediation however, mass

when investors who had inflated the stock market rates faced margin

systemic disturbances can cause well-established

calls from their brokers and were subsequently forced to sell). This

social, financial and political structures to collapse. Although China

fall in investor confidence coupled with a slow response from the

hasn’t reached the latter stage yet, the present circumstances must be

government (which, at one point even threatened to imprison traders

addressed immediately or the world could face a massive economic

engaging in massive short-selling) led to Black Monday on 24th

crisis triggered by the Asian dragon.

August, a single day in which the Shanghai index fell by about 8.5%, its biggest fall since 2007. But, it must be noted that a stock market crash, however brutal, can have minimized damages if authorities take the necessary measures at the appropriate time. The fact is Chinese investors themselves are facing massive debt problems. Chinese borrowers are taking on debt worth approximately $1.2 trillion to repay interest on their existing obligations. This vicious cycle of incurring debt to repay interest on existing debt significantly raises the risk of default once interest payments become too huge to ignore and lenders refuse to give further loans. Moreover, the local government currently has approximately 15 trillion Yuan of debt

In the past twenty years, China’s unprecedented rise has been too smooth a journey. The country has paved its path to success through its technological advancements, cheap manufacturing units, strategic relations with key oil producing African Nations, and the fact that it holds more US debt than any other country. However, towards the second half of 2015, the world witnessed significant defaults in the China Model and the problems this caused. In the past 30 years, the Chinese economy has continuously boasted of high growth rates. While experts were predicting slowing growth rates this year, the shock really hit when on 24th August 2015, London’s FTSE 100 shed approximately 74 billion pounds in a mater of hours following massive sell-offs in the Shanghai Composite

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

it has to repay, with another 8.5 trillion Yuan stuck in contingent liabilities.

“The country has paved its path to success through its technological advancements, cheap manufacturing units, strategic relations with key oil producing African Nations, and the fact that it holds more US debt than any other country.“

In addition, China has many economic partnerships and relationships with other countries. Its slowing economy is impacting different sectors in different countries.

“Being the world’s second largest economy, the biggest manufacturing nation and a global exporter, any domestic crisis in China is likely to spread globally.”

exchange management system of a country, causing financial and capital market disorder and adding to the already existing woes. U.S. markets could be negatively impacted in the future as investors from Chinese states may find U.S. stocks, commodities and bonds to be a more attractive option. Though this would be a positive cash flow for the United States, it could strengthen the dollar even further thus causing exports from the U.S. to be relatively more expensive and thus less competitive. As far as commodities go we are observing lower prices due to lower demand as Chinese exporters are finding alternative markets to ship them to. Countries like India are being forced to put curbs on steel imports, owing to a tide of cheap Chinese shipments, thus

Though UK companies were adversely impacted by the credit

creating fear in the domestic markets of the importing countries.

crunch in China, investors losing confidence in the Yuan sought different markets and asset classes to park their wealth. To an extent, real estate in UK became a popular choice though by no means did it witness a tremendous rise as compared to Vancouver where a buying spree by Chinese and Hong Kong businessmen caused double digits rise in house rates. As the Renminbi (Yuan) loses value, it becomes safer for Chinese citizens to invest in foreign assets.

Moreover, the fall in Chinese demand is causing prices to decrease; for instance, copper prices are resonating the low price levels of December 2003 as demand for electrical appliances is falling in China. This has even led to major copper smelters proposing output cuts in 2016 because lower production and output inevitably results in job cuts, which can be a cause of panic across the markets.

However, the Chinese law restricts its citizens from transferring

Being the world’s second largest economy, the biggest

more than $50,000 per year in foreign exchange. But where there’s

manufacturing nation and a global exporter, any domestic crisis in

demand, there’s supply. A number of illegal underground banks

China is likely to spread globally. While it is too early to say if we

emerged, providing facilities for transferring money overseas. As of

would witness a catastrophe like the 2008 U.S. financial crisis, which

December 2015, Chinese authorities arrested more than a hundred

led to a global meltdown, we still need to be prepared for adverse

bankers involved in these underground activities, which resulted

effects; be it job-cuts, falling commodity prices or rising real-estate

in the transfer of approximately 800 billion Renminbi to foreign

prices in other parts of the world. ■

currencies. Illegal transfers such as this further disrupt the foreign

THE BRICS A Postcolonial Rising Power? BY ANUSHAR THANASEKARAN

hen the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was first coined in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, most of the world never really took the possibility that a

power transition could occur. But with the economy of the BRIC or BRICS (with the admission of South Africa in 2010) states booming in the past decade or so in addition to a rise in military build-up have sparked debates in academia whether or not a power transition would occur. Will the neoliberal Western hegemony be challenged by these BRICS states? Will China be the next global hegemon? And does this mean a decline in the West? In this piece, I address these

occurred ever since these institutions were created after the Second

questions by arguing that no, a power transition is currently not

World War has not shook the foundations of these institutions

taking place. This is because the resilience of modern institutions

and neither has it been challenged by an alternative framework of

have caused states to adapt Western centric neoliberal values which

systems, one which claims that it could provide the same ideational

have led to convergence rather than competition. Besides that,

diversity and adaptability like the Bretton Woods institutions can.

the power projection capability of BRICS nation states are limited

China’s accession into the WTO in 2001 after thirteen years of effort

or restricted thus making them incapable of power beyond their

was a turning point. The fact is, China has successfully integrated

borders or regions. In addition, BRICS as a whole fails to act as a

itself in the international economic system dominated by liberal

coherent bloc in world affairs which undermines their power thus

norms and regulations and controlled by Western states in a largely

making it tough and if not, impossible for a power transition to

cooperative manner. This in return has had a remarkable effect

occur. I then conclude by answering the question of what the future

on China’s economy. This integration also applies for other BRICS

of BRICS would look like.

member states – Russia gained WTO membership in 2012 and India

“BRICS as a whole fails to act as a coherent bloc in world affairs which undermines their power thus making it tough and if not, impossible for a power transition to occur.” For decades we have seen neoliberal institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank thrive amidst all the uncertainty and scrutiny it has faced. Even the multiple financial shocks and crisis which

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

and Brazil were both a member of the predecessor of WTO, GATT and then WTO in 1995 onwards. China or BRICS in general is not pressing for new ideas to cause a breakdown of Western institutions

only for a new one to emerge lead by the BRICS states. BRICS states

therefore making international power projection an unnecessary

are instead internalising the rules of the West and has not present a

burden at the moment.

coherent alternative model for global economic governance. Besides that, the fact that BRICS member states are greatly benefiting from these institution through integration gives them little to no incentive to challenge a system that is not a threat to their interest. In addition, these rising powers are also not diverging substantially from the current institutional and normative status quo. Consequently, reducing the potential for conflict thus further reducing the probability that there would be a power transition.

India’s foreign policy on the other hand has been incorporated into the broader geopolitical aims of the US ever since the end of the Cold War. It also has territorial disputes with Pakistan on the Jammu and Kashmir issue and with its BRICS partner, China on Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. With matters at home plaguing India, is India capable of spreading universal values? The answer to these question might just be no. India’s failure in promoting democracy is Maldives provides a cogent example that India is unwilling to

Apart from the current superpower showdown between the

spread values beyond its borders. China however, pursues a foreign

United States (US) and Russia in Syria, the rest of the BRICS states are

policy different from any of the other BRICS states. With the British

incapable or hesitant to project power abroad. More often than not, these states power projecting capabilities are confined to its region. Besides the current domestic problems such as Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment and the struggle to lift the Brazilian economy from its most severe crisis in decades, Brazil is also struggling regionally. Lula da Silva’s foreign policy to build Brazil’s reputation as a strong

“Apart from the current superpower showdown between the United States (US) and Russia in Syria, the rest of

regional power by integrating Latin America through MERCOSUR,

the BRICS states are incapable

the Latin American Economic System and the Union of South

or hesitant to project power

American Nations has had little success. The goal of integration both

abroad.”

politically and economically is far from complete and is in fact facing a steady decline with Latin America countries playing the blame game for the lack of progress of these institutions. Domestically, Dilma’s government has also been more occupied with trying to lift its popularity which is in its all-time low of 9% as of December 2015. Aside from leading the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping troops in Haiti, Brazil’s hands are tied both domestically and regionally

Parliament authorising air strikes with the backing of all of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members except China, it seems as though China is mute on the situation in Syria and counter-terrorism as a whole. This can be connected to China’s unique foreign policy – one which stresses on creating an international environment that

ASIA

will permit them from focussing on domestic affairs and economic

secretariat to set an agenda or overlook decisions made and its

growth. This unique foreign policy which China adheres to prevents

implementation within the bloc, the IBSA Dialogue Forum hasn’t made

them from pursuing foreign policies that are beyond its realm of

much progress even though there has been a lot written on paper on

“The fact is, China has successfully integrated itself in the international economic system dominated by liberal norms and regulations and controlled by Western states in a largely cooperative manner.” interest, even if it means allowing nature to take its course in

expanding areas of cooperation. Furthermore, although the BRICS’s

international security issues. What this means as a whole is that

effort to restructure a new global aid architecture through the BRICS

China may be unfit to project hard power if it does not see a greater

Development Bank or what is now known as the New Development

gain for its domestic affairs and economic growth.

Bank (NDB) is argued to be a challenge to the World Bank, it however

The power projection capability of BRICS states are thus limited due to various issues thus making them incapable of pursuing policies abroad which are beyond its realm of interest. Besides that, the divergent interest on the foreign policy of each BRICS member states means that it is unclear what universal values are for these states and what is considered as a priority and what is not. Because part of the task of being a great power means policing the international system, it seems unlikely that the BRICS states are capable of undertaking this responsibility as a coherent bloc.

can be viewed as rising powers simply seeking for a stronger voice in the global neoliberal economic governance. Besides that, the NDB also faces a harsh reality which undermines its effectiveness – the relatively small aid. The small amount of aid weakens just how much could be achieved through the NDB. Most worrying of all, is the clash of interest within BRICS itself. China’s strong stance against the admittance of Brazil and India as a permanent member of the UNSC indicates the lack of cohesion when it comes to the interest of BRICS. Only time will tell if this clash of interest would lead to fissures within BRICS, but as of now, Brazil and India are still strongly pushing for a permanent seat in the UNSC while China refuses to back either of them. To sum up, we are currently not facing a power transition. The resilience of modern institutions, the limited capability of power projection by the BRICS states as well as the lack of initiative and cohesion of BRICS as a whole makes power transition unlikely for the time being. The future of BRICS is one of necessary cooperation for economic gains. Thus, a promotion of economic convergence would take place rather than a challenge towards great powers. At the most, BRICS member states may find that their bargaining power

Besides that, efforts to form a collective action by BRICS has had little progress. The IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) Fund for development finance is the main initiative the BRICS has had after seven summits. Besides not having a headquarters or a permanent

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

increasing now that they essentially function as a bloc. ■

CONTEMPLATING SOUTH ASIAN WARS The Past, the Present, and Future of the India-Pakistan Wars BY PRATINAV ANIL

n the mid-eighties, India’s military began a major shopping binge,

intelligence agency, the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI). This covert

buying MiG-29s from the Soviet Union, a Mirage 2000 from

policy of ‘bleeding India by a thousand cuts’ dates back to General

France, diesel submarines from Germany and the infamous Bofor

Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, when Sundarji’s war-gaming convinced the

howitzers from Sweden that brought down Prime Minister Rajiv

Pakistani establishment that the only war it could win would have to

Gandhi in a corruption scandal. The decade also saw the rise of

be an asymmetrical one.

Krishnaswami Sundarji, a belligerent, whiskey-sipping general who believed in doctrinal catch- phrases like the ‘higher direction of war.’ While the term was meant to connote a general military modernization process, it quite literally took the India-Pakistan military rivalry to the heights of the Siachen Glacier in 1984 – a pointless confrontation 20,000 feet above sea level where battling the elements kept the two sides busier than the battling each other did. Sundarji’s war mongering reached its peak in 1986 in what became India’s most ambitious military exercise till date. Without informing Pakistan the

Nearly three decades later, South Asia finds itself under similar circumstances. With more resources to channel into the defence sector, India’s capital expenditure – i.e., money spent acquiring new weapon systems, which traditionally accounts for around 40% of the defence budgets – and doctrinal thinking have grown in ambition. India’s chief of army staff announced the birth of India’s most offensive military doctrine in its history in April 2004. The Cold Start Doctrine harks back to the Brasstacks era, and boasts of an ability to mobilize half a million troops in 48-72 hours while

nature of Operation Brasstacks, the military provocatively deployed its Army Reserve North on its side of the Radcliffe Line, compelling Pakistan to do the same. The deployments continued to escalate with massive airlifts, with both states exchanging threats to neutralize each other’s nuclear facilities. The two countries nearly went to war, before a series of confidence-building measures were hammered out by political leaders wary of the military establishment. Three years later, the insurgency broke out in Kashmir, beginning a long era – which continues today – in which intermittent terrorist attacks punctuate daily life in the valley. The Indian Armed Forces maintain a large – but as the local population attests, not always benevolent – presence in the region, battling homegrown and imported terrorists that are often cynically backed by Pakistan’s

ASIA

ensuring a naval blockade of Pakistan and neutralizing their armed

Less than forty-eight hours after taking office, a future member

forces – all of this before international powers can intervene and

of Modi’s cabinet was already exchanging nuclear threats with a

more crucially, below the threshold of nuclear conflict. With no dual-

Pakistani strategic affairs expert on television. This is in line with the

track or diplomatic initiatives to reduce tensions, it is no surprise that

Bharatiya Janata Party’s thinking, which in its 2014 party manifesto

Pakistan sees this as an existential challenge, spooking the country’s

states that the previous government’s ten-year stint had ‘frittered

leadership into further relying on non-state actors and hawkish

away’ the ‘independent strategic nuclear programme.’ Nuclear

generals and politicians. With rapidly growing nuclear arsenals and

tensions run high between the two countries – while both nations

the development of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), the nuclear

insist that their nuclear weapons are only of deterrent value, their

threshold in the region has been significantly lowered.

political-military establishments fear a preemptive strike from their neighbor, hence the high value the two countries attach to second-

“With rapidly growing nuclear arsenals and the development of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), the nuclear threshold in the region has been significantly lowered.” In 2008, following a siege on Mumbai by an ISI-backed terrorist

strike capabilities. Such a nuclear exchange – which a number of military and non-military think tanks believe is not unthinkable – could have potentially devastating consequences. Studies have shown that if a limited nuclear exchange occurred before the arrival of the monsoon, the prevailing winds blowing from the north-west could lead to the nuclear fallout blowing back into east India, and move into its eastward neighbors. If the exchange took place after the monsoon settles in, the winds would blow in the opposite direction, causing widespread damage in Afghanistan, Iran and beyond.

outfit that killed 165 people, the two nations were on the brink of

In either case, the international damage of a South Asian

war, which was only avoided by the restraint of the Manmohan

nuclear exchange, however limited, would be significant, posing

Singh administration, the lack of preparedness of the Indian Armed

a major security threat to a number of countries not just in the

Forces and intelligence agencies (in spite of the Cold Start Doctrine)

South Asian region. As the two countries move towards ideological

and diplomatic negotiations conducted by Senator John McCain

extremities with the surge of Hindu nationalism of India and the

and US Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke.

increasing Talibanization of Pakistan, the potent mix of military

However, according to most estimates the present Narendra Modi

modernization and political intolerance could be fatal to the two

administration will have no such inhibitions in escalating conflict if

nuclear nations. It is high time the international community accord

a terror strike occurs. A fresh round of border skirmishes broke out

greater importance to the region, and make the containment of this

in July last year, leading to the displacement of over 17,000 people

conflict one of priorities of the coming year. ■

in the Kashmir region, making 2014 the most violent year since the ceasefire of 2003. The skirmishes still continue, though on a more muted level, but neither of the two countries is inclined to pursue a diplomatic solution. In August 2014, India cancelled high-level talks with its neighbor after Pakistan’s envoy Abdul Basit decided to hold ‘consultations’ with the leader of the Hurriyat Conference, a separatist organization in Kashmir. In a case of requital, Pakistan’s leaders cancelled a diplomatic endeavor in August 2015, citing India’s refusal to put issues other than terrorism on the table. Comic by Weng

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

EUROPE

A YEAR OF TERROR How the threat of IS has entered Europe and how we can fight back BY PAULA GRABOSCH

n November 13th, the fear that the self-proclaimed

alarm, the threat still resulted in the cancellation of a massive public

‘Islamic State’ is no longer a distant terror threat was

event. More than that, it robbed people of their sense of security,

confirmed with the horrific attacks on Paris. Hitting the

replacing it with uncertainty and fear. The question that comes to

French capital and its citizens was a hit right in the centre of Europe,

mind in moments like these is whether or not calling off the game

something few terrorists have succeeded at in the past.

was the right reaction. Is that not playing right into the hands of

Following the attacks, there was a tremendous outpouring of shock, sorrow and sympathy for the victims and those who have lost loved ones from all corners of the world. This emotional response was

the terrorists and giving into our fears? Regardless, as the German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière remarked, in these situations it is better to be safe than sorry.

criticised by many, drawing attention to the lack of such a reaction to similar attacks occurring at the same time, to name only one: Beirut. Even though both terror attacks were of similar magnitude and gravity, the key difference between them was evidently their location. While the loss of lives is equally tragic in all cases, the fact that an attack in Paris, the beloved ‘Ville Lumière’, was so unexpected, led to this extreme outpouring of emotions. The attacks highlighted the fact that the IS has managed to penetrate the borders of Europe and

“The attacks highlighted the fact that the IS has managed to penetrate the borders of Europe and thereby shook many citizens to their core.”

thereby shook many citizens to their core. So far, we have enjoyed incredible comfort in Europe. In most places, leaving the house is an

Another similar situation arose just recently, when Brussels

act so trivial that its safety is rarely questioned. However, it seems as

placed itself under the highest terror alert level and put the public life

though what we used to take as a given is a luxury we can no longer

on lockdown. Schools, Universities, Malls and Museums remained

rely on.

closed for four days during this time, in order to avoid large

Over the past weeks, a number of incidents have shown just how real the threat of terror now is in Europe. Only a few days after the attacks on Paris, the entire football stadium in Hannover, Germany was evacuated right before a match between Germany and the Netherlands was supposed to take place. After having received multiple bomb threats, all people in Hannover were advised to stay in their houses as well as avoid public transport for the remainder of the evening. Even though the bomb scare was ultimately a false

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

accumulations of people. The Belgian Interior Minister explained this lockdown by indicating that several suspects tied to the Paris attacks could be at large in Belgium. The Prime Minister added to this stating “We still fear attacks here like those that occurred in Paris”. With 19 property searches and 16 temporary arrests made but no significant results, the Brussels lockdown ended just as suddenly as it had begun. Needless to say, forcing Europe’s capital into lockdown of public life is extremely telling of the extent to which IS and its terror

threats have managed to seep into Europe and its cities. Overall, incidents like these lead to anxiety and mistrust. This

refugees have endured for years in their home countries and are fleeing from.

becomes particularly problematic with regards to the on-going Refugee crisis. Evidently, this large influx of refugees is hard to fully control. Many fear that terrorists will enter European countries,

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Is that not playing right into

easily passing EU borders by posing as refugees. This allows them to

the hands of the terrorists and

go off the grid in Europe, unregistered and unmonitored, able to plot

giving into our fears?â&#x20AC;?

further destructive terrorist attacks. Whilst these fears are certainly reasonable, they are most certainly not a reason to develop negative sentiments towards the refugees. It is exactly the kind of terror and

Shocking to me is that the consequences of us experiencing

the resulting loss of our sense of security we have seen in Paris, that

this terror first-hand do not lead a great deal of us to sympathise

EUROPE

with other humans trying to escape this exact same type of terror.

revealed that the number of foreign fighters joining radical Islamist

Instead, we are building up fences, calling for closure of borders and

Militias like the IS in Syria and Iraq has doubled over the course of

doing everything we can to not let those people in. It is obvious that

the past two years. According to the report, between 27.000 and

Europe cannot accommodate all refugees and that integration will

31.000 foreign fighters from 86 different countries left their own

be a difficult process, but division is not going to solve this problem.

country to join the Jihad in Syria and Iraq, with approximately 5000

As the opening round of the French regional elections has

of them originating from Europe.

shown, almost 30% of the French population have been drawn to the far right politically in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

“It is obvious that Europe

Unfortunately, this kind of reaction is not limited to France. In

cannot accommodate all

Germany, the xenophobic and anti-Islamistic movement, Pegida, (‘Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident’) has

refugees and that integration

seen a massive increase in support as a result of the refugee crisis

will be a difficult process, but

and the terrorist threat posed by the IS. How can it be that even today people have not learned from past mistakes? Polarising societies even further by supporting excluding policies is not the

division is not going to solve this problem.”

answer to any war, certainly not a war of terror that aims precisely at dividing society. It seems undeniable that the threat of the ‘Islamic State’ has seeped into Europe. In fact, a report of the US-based “Soufan Group” that provides strategic security intelligence services to governments,

The IS being such a ‘global phenomenon’ and winning even Europeans over to their extremist ideology, makes eradicating the threat completely almost impossible. Even if the highly controversial air strikes European countries (such as France, Germany and Britain) are carrying out succeeded in severely weakening the IS in Syria and

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

Iraq, the extremists could still exert their influence and use foreign

French president Hollande told his citizens not to live in fear. Perhaps

sympathisers to carry out further attacks elsewhere. Since the terror

if the leaders of the member states followed this advice themselves,

threat has shifted from being concentrated in one area to being an

collective action would not be so hard. If they dropped the fear of

ideology manifested in the minds of people all across the globe, it

one another, the fear of being disadvantaged and the fear of the

seems like it is virtually impossible to wipe out.

consequences of political action and replaced this with cooperation,

What does this mean for Europe? More specifically, how are the relations between EU countries being affected by the threat of the

EU relations can be strengthened rather than weakened as a result of the crises it is currently facing.

IS as well as the refugee crisis? Usually, crises concerning a number

Overall, where does the terror threat leave us? Does this mean

of nation states require collective action. However, the problem in

our cities, our homes, our beloved ones are no longer safe? And what

this case is that the member states of the EU are not of the same

can we do about that? As Antoine Leiris, whose wife was killed in

opinion. Looking at the disagreement over whether to leave borders

the atrocity at the Bataclan concert hall, said “I will not give you the

open or to reinforce border control clearly highlights this difference

satisfaction of hating you. You want it, but to respond to hatred with

of opinion over the refugee crisis. Similarly with regards to the threat

anger would be to give in to the same ignorance that made you what

of IS, the question of whether to interfere militarily or not is dividing

you are.” This incredibly powerful statement of a grieving husband

the EU’s member states. Evidently all countries have to keep their

who has every reason to be angry should answer our question.

own interests in mind, but in order to answer to such global crises, a

Answering to terror with hatred, fear and mutual distrust is not going

union such as that of the EU is more vital than ever. When it comes

to change much. In order to win this battle, the only thing we can do

down to it, the fundamental interest of all member states is peace

is unite and never let our freedom be stolen from those who have lost

and safety for its citizens. Following the terror attacks in Paris, the

their humanity. ■

EUROPE

THE MASTER OF PUPPETS Making sense of changing power relations in Poland BY MARTA KOZIELSKA

hile the citizens sleep tight, the parliamentary

overthrew the strict shape of the constitutional court, to, now,

beast awakens. Since the election of the new Polish

instigate control over the national media.

government, along with President Andrzej Duda, the

almost revolutionary, authoritarian movement smoothly slithers through the previously established system’s structures. Polish government has been recently carrying out intensive inflammatory processes incessantly.

As the government, empowered by the restrictive Catholic framework, fails to or chooses not to act in the interest of the public, citizens assign power to themselves. With its attempts to comply with conservative Catholic principles, the government gauges the religious sentiment to their policies. Somewhat embedded in quietist heresy, the political representatives introduce new changes, headed by one increasingly daunting persona. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the Law and Justice party, may be seen as one true claimant of all this fuss. Many argue that President Duda simply acts as a string puppet in the increasingly powerful hands of Kaczynski. Is he to be burned in effigy once Kaczynski achieves his goal? President Duda, immediately after his election, proudly resigned from the PiS party membership in order to ensure impartiality. Nonetheless, while this alleged autonomy may only be seen in his edicts to the Polish nation, the citizens and their common good, he also simultaneously executes Kaczynski’s will. Jaroslaw Kaczynski is infamous for his involvement in the fabrication of the

In October 2015, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) formed the new parliament with a 51% majority, taking up 235 out of 460

IV RP - Fourth Polish Republic. His ultimate aim was to instigate a moral and political revolution. It has never come into being. Another

seats. This has exposed Poland to another challenging political path where, this time, there is no leftist balancing body. Since the 1989

“As the government,

fall of the Berlin Wall, ultimately quelling the communist era and

empowered by the restrictive

Soviet rule in Eastern Europe, no left wing voice will be heard in Sejm, the lower house of Polish parliament. Beginning with several vetoes

Catholic framework, fails

on progressive and rather decisive to pan-European integration

or chooses not to act in the

movements, the parliamentary representatives quite effectively and

interest of the public, citizens

also efficiently (ensuring no single hour in the day goes wasted),

assign power to themselves.“

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

chance now presents itself. Yet this time, Kaczynski and his party

country. Whilst the government proceeds with theses thunderous

are not wasting any time. Still living in the past era, blinded by his

whelms of social power, this glowering pandemonium will not rest.

posthumous dystopian vision, he leads the movement to preclusion of democratic proceedings and utter power expropriation.

Social upheavals in the country have been caused by the changes in the Constitutional Court, which originally entailed protection of constitutional values--those that ultimately prevent any boisterous systemic changes. Since her cabinet took office, Beata Szydlo is now the Prime Minister of Poland. Fielding a female character as a leader of the government engenders no less controversies in the newly formed power. Is it therefore appropriate to approximate Szydlo, in the gender-conservative country, as just another puppet of Kaczyński’s power? Due to the antics of the new government, European integration seems to be coming under threat. The European Commission expresses its concerns with the Polish government’s hasty movements, pointing to rapidly escalating warnings from various

Citizens are starting to notice the development from smaller, indicative changes to an extensive structural revolution. The Act on gender, with its promising plans to finally allow homosexual marriage, free choice and expression of gender has been abolished.

international bodies, advising the President not to overstep his newly acquired power. The total control which the Law and Justice Party has implemented during such a short period of presidency points to the possibility of greater extremities yet to come.

The Parliament’s reluctance to comply with the European Union’s asylum policy relating to the Refugee Crisis poses further concerns. The parliamentary decisions seem to impose an increasing number of domestic and international push-backs. Overthrowing the previous structures of the constitutional court point to only the beginning of severe democratic neglect. Another domain of social life is now being taken over successfully. The media supervisory committee has recently been stripped off its authority to hire broadcasting chiefs. From now on, it is the Treasury Minister who will appoint and dismiss them. Under the freshly signed bill by the President and the current board, managers will be sacked with an immediate effect. Some may perceive the media and state-run television to be harrowingly akin to Soviet style censorship in the country. Many Polish citizens poignantly observe the unraveling order

It is a sorely disturbing picture; yet it seems to be treated as a power play by Kaczynski, Duda and the government. Observers are calling it a game of chess. The only task we have left now is to see and determine who is the Queen and who takes the role of the King. ■

of things; some naively see these changes as humorous hoaxes, while others lead a rapidly flourishing movement, going back on the streets. There is an apparent proliferation of dissidents in the

EUROPE

CONTRIBUTORS Writers ALFRED WONG CAMILLA SAVANCO PRATINAV ANIL MYLINH DANG MAHMOUD ELBANHAWI ANUSHAR THANASEKARAN MEGAN ERICKSON PAULA GRABOSCH RYAN KELLY ABHISHEK PARASRAMPURIA CHARLOTTE HOINESS MARTA KOZIELSKA

Illustrators AASTHA ARORA GEORGINA FUNNELL KANAN PARIDA VIKTORIA HWANG

The London Globalist 2015/2016 Committee Members PRESIDENT

NIKITA GANIN

SECRETARY

SHANICE KHOO

TREASURER

AUGUSTIN HOCHET

MAGAZINE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF MAGAZINE DESIGN EDITOR ONLINE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF DEPUTY ONLINE EDITOR MARKETING DIRECTOR

KRISH ANIL KANAN PARIDA GEORGINA FUNNELL KATE KHAMARUK

SPONSORSHIP DIRECTOR

FERDINAND DWERNICKI

SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR CHIEF FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENT

THE LONDON GLOBALIST

NAOMI TAWIAH

SPONSORSHIP DIRECTOR EVENTS DIRECTOR

MALLIKA IYER

MARTA KOZIELSKA NAEEM AMARSY ABHISHEK PARASRAMPURIA

THE LONDON GLOBALIST W W W .T H E LONDONGLOBALIST.COM