By Revathi Satish

Abstract

Global politics has undergone a transformation since World War II. Nations have gone from grieving the destruction inflicted on innocents and establishing the United Nations as a platform for diplomacy to arbitrarily engaging in military aggression. Economically and militarily powerful countries, like the US and Russia, have weaponized their indispensability to the global supply chain and used it as a green light to engage in armed conflict without being held accountable. This aggression has been followed by incredibly mellow international condemnation that has failed to penalise these nations for their crimes. This pattern sheds light on a deeper problem: There is a steady global acceptance of war as a means to settle conflicts. This article analyses how the prioritisation of economic gain has led to the acceptance of war to settle disputes.

World War II was a pivotal point in world history with the unparalleled global destruction it caused. Nearly every European country was in financial crisis; there was a global shortage of food and healthcare services; more than 60 million people were displaced; two Japanese cities were flattened; and major decolonisation movements were underway in Asia and Africa. The most significant outcome was the global consensus that no victory could ever outweigh or justify the massive toll of death and destruction inflicted on innocents during a war. The suffering and wounds of WWII led the world to decide that war must be avoided at all costs. World leaders focused on building lasting peace and established the United Nations, an organisation rooted in the collective belief that conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and that war is simply not worth the price. 

Today, this belief, as well as the power and influence of the UN, seems to have faded. Economically and militarily powerful nations are resorting to warfare to manage conflicts. The first major crack appeared when the US and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001 as part of the Global War on Terror. Twenty years later, the US handed Kabul back into the hands of the very Taliban they tried to obliterate. The next crack appeared when Washington orchestrated the 2003 invasion of  Iraq under the pretence of seizing Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) – which, time revealed to be a hoax. The 2008 Russian war against Georgia was stated to be against Georgia’s candidacy for NATO membership. In 2011, the US launched airstrikes against Libya, Syria, and Yemen, calling them ‘counterterrorism measures’. These strikes caused thousands of civilian deaths between 2011 and 2020. The 2014 Russian invasion and annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea is another example. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the latest in the growing list of military conflicts with catastrophic impacts. These conflicts have slowly chipped away at the post-World War II tenet of diplomacy over armed conflict to resolve international issues. 

The common denominator among these armed conflicts is that they were all initiated by economically and militarily powerful countries who believed they could break the law and get away unpunished. The fact that no country directly retaliated militarily or stood up against the US (and by extension, NATO) or Russia’s behaviour, highlights that if a country is economically powerful, controls a significant part of global resources, and possesses military deterrence capabilities, it can get away with the use of military aggression to achieve political goals. Except for initial condemnation, there was no action taken to hold the US accountable for violating another country’s sovereignty. When Russia attacked Ukraine, the international response was predictably mellow. Washington and its allies deployed their overused weapons of imposing sanctions, freezing bank accounts and seizing Russian assets, which did about as much to stop Russian aggression as a ‘STOP’ sign in the face of a hurricane. Despite political condemnation, no country cut diplomatic ties, stopped buying Russian oil and gas (in Europe), or stopped trading with Russia. 

This politico-economic incongruity exists because nations cannot afford to sacrifice economic interests by cutting ties with powerful states like the US or Russia. Countries will have more to lose by dissolving diplomatic ties than they will have to gain by being righteous. There is also the lack of a unified mechanism or united group of countries who are willing to take on aggressors. Countries like India, Germany and the EU have realised that Russia is too significant an economic partner and that it is not worth sacrificing their relationship for an issue that does not involve them directly.

This pattern of foreign policy highlights a deeper problem which is the steady global acceptance of warfare to settle conflicts. The reason the US and Russia’s precedent matters so much is that it can embolden other militarily and/or economically powerful states like China, Israel, North Korea, etc to break the law and use force to achieve their interests. This will be followed by the expectation that the rest of the world will acquiesce to their aggression if they are able to protect their own economic and geopolitical interests. Let us examine how this trend could possibly play out in some of the contemporary international disputes. 

India – China 

In the Sino-Indian border conflict, for over 50 years China has claimed ownership over a portion of the Indian Territory called ‘Aksai Chin’. There have been border military confrontations over the last few years, the most recent being the Galwan Valley clash on 15 June 2020, which saw a hostile confrontation between Chinese and Indian soldiers with casualties on both sides. Although the issue predates the aggression in Ukraine, the similarities are indisputable. China and India are both economically and militarily powerful and contribute significantly to global GDP. They are both important trading partners for the US and the EU, which would put Washington and Brussels in a fix if a war were to erupt between the two nations. Although India may not have military action in Aksai Chin as part of its military or foreign policy plan, Beijing may periodically be tempted to ignite mischief. 

China, which has a $390 billion goods trade surplus with the EU and as Washington’s largest trading partner, has never played by the rules of diplomacy. China would be very confident that it is too indispensable to the global supply chain for the world to even contemplate penalising it or taking any detrimental action. China could be emboldened by the tepid global response to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. However, even if China attacks Ladakh, it will not be guaranteed success, due to India’s growing economic, political, and military might and global standing. Therefore, picking a fight with New Delhi might be tempting, but does not seem likely. 

China – Taiwan 

In October 2021, President Xi Jinping stated his intent to unify Taiwan with China. Although President Joe Biden has vowed to aid Taiwan in any eventuality of China initiating military action, China will most probably succeed. Taiwan is much smaller than Ukraine, and geographically closer to China. With the steep military power gradient between Taiwan and China and the short distance between them, the US and NATO would be hard-pressed to stop China. Geographic distance and accessibility limitations will pose huge challenges for NATO to supply logistics, weapon systems and aid to Taiwan, unlike in the case of Europe supporting Ukraine from next door. Most importantly, no country will want to pick a direct fight with China. It is quite likely that after some amount of initial condemnation and posturing, the world would be helpless against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 

Armenia – Azerbaijan 

The dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh (an autonomous territory inside Azerbaijan claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan), recently took an interesting turn. Azerbaijan decided to throw away decades of negotiation and unilaterally seal the Lachin corridor, the only narrow strip of land connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. This move essentially cuts off the territory from any Armenian support. There was also strong condemnation from Yerevan against the ethnic cleansing of Armenian Christians by Azerbaijan. This unilateral move by Azerbaijan is the latest example of a country kindling an armed conflict and using aggression to achieve its geopolitical agenda. We have not seen a strong response from the global community to this aggressive change in a long-standing dispute.

Israel – Palestine 

The conflict between Israel and Palestine began in 1948 when UN Resolution 181 divided the British Mandate of Palestine (Palestinian territory under British control) into an Arab State and a Jewish State. This enraged the Palestinians, who felt their historical homeland was being taken away from them with the establishment of the State of Israel. Thus, a conflict ensued between Israel and Palestine that resulted in several wars. The first was the Arab–Israeli War of 1948 which saw an Israeli victory and led to the region being divided into 3 parts: Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, the conflict did not end there. The following years saw the 1956 Suez Crisis where Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. In retaliation, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in 1967, to regain control of lost territory. The fighting continued during the first intifada (1987) and the second intifada (2000), but a solution was elusive. 

Egypt tried to broker a ceasefire in 2014 but failed. The US tried to negotiate a solution in the form of Oslo Accords – I (1993) and Oslo – II Accords (1995) which established a Palestinian Authority to govern the Gaza Strip and West Bank. However, both treaties had limited success and the region repeatedly succumbed to violence. The recent attack by Hamas on Israel is the first attack of this magnitude since the Yom Kippur War 50 years ago. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a declaration of war and announced that perpetrators will ‘pay an unprecedented price’. This makes Israel unlikely to stop fighting until it has had its revenge. The complexity of the conflict is exacerbated by the involvement of ‘Hezbollah,’ an extremist group in Lebanon, that is armed and funded by Iran. Tehran has deep religious differences with Israel and is against the normalisation of relations between Israel and the Muslim world. A permanent settlement of the dispute will require resolving issues not only with Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah but with regional adversaries like Iran. This is the second instance of a party arbitrarily engaging in armed aggression against another to settle a conflict. If the crossfire is not put out, it risks Israel and Palestine leaving the negotiating table permanently. 

Conclusion

The precedent of using force against another state, set by the US and Russia, has the potential to incite other aggressors into replicating these tactics. If Washington and Moscow are not held accountable for their actions, the use of military force will become the modus operandi and negotiation will become practically impossible. The tide may turn in favour of armed conflict initiated by powerful states who would expect a gloss-over by the international community. More nations could follow them and view warfare as the quicker option to win disputes rather than long-drawn diplomatic negotiations. The potential for this trend to spiral out of control makes it very dangerous. The world could eventually descend to the very state of chaos and destruction that it swore to abolish nearly 80 years ago. The international community has gone from grieving the destruction of World War II and working to ensure that violence is prevented, to taking diplomatic institutions like the United Nations for granted and engaging in war. 

It seems that international order has come full circle. The world today might be very different technologically, economically, and socially from the post-WW-II one, However, one aspect is unchanged: like in the case of World War II, change is on its way. It is up to countries to decide whether that change will come through choice or catastrophe. 

Author’s Bio

Revathi Satish is a student at Jindal Global Law School. She is interested in Public International Law, foreign affairs and public speaking. 

Image Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/the-trump-administration-is-making-war-on-diplomacy.html