Great Powers Shaping Geopolitical Landscape

Management of great power rivalries is a vital part of international relations. The general preferences are the use of effective deterrence, diplomacy, multilateralism, pacific settlement of disputes and stopping wars in support of a rules-based global order, governance of global commons and bringing the weak to justice while making the wrongdoers accountable for their actions. It is hard to say now whether the emerging multi-polar order is constructed on the Westphalian notion of sovereignty of states and balance of power, or Hugo Grotius’s idea of a society of socialized states where individuals are integrated in the sovereign states akin to the Confucian harmony of individual and society or Kantian version of the community of humanity, or even neo-idealist image of global justice to overcome the state of disorder. 

This disorder is spurred by geopolitical tussles, state fragility by internal conflicts, embattled executives, growing scams and leaders’ inability to uplift living standards. Unbounded contests of nations for profit without reflection on the common good can drift struggle to disorder, not stable peace. A stable world order requires certain values, institutions and rules of engagement among the USA, China and Russia and other powers of various scales. American President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy is redefining a new context of international relations.  His business-like approach to statecraft has consequences for global order shaped so far by a network of allies and intra-Atlantic consensus on liberal order with common security, democracy and human rights, market economy and trade liberalization. 

Crack in intra-Atlantic security 

Now one can see a crack in intra-Atlantic security and value architecture with their varied approach to Ukraine, NATO, and UN’s roles. President Trump has blamed Ukraine for the cause of conflict and did not engage it and Europe in the US-Russia negotiation. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ruled out Kyiv joining NATO and rescuing lost territory as America is focusing on its borders and deterring war with China.  US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, considering China’s rise in multi-dimensional power a biggest threat to the US, aims to strengthen defense cooperation with Indo-Pacific allies - Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and Australia. These nations acted as a hedge against any powers unfriendly to American interests. 

 The converging interest of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran has helped Russia to pivot to Asia and avert any containment plan.  Many members of the Global South will continue to relish China’s global initiatives, considering that China has the political will and resources to execute them and contribute to UN sustainable goals. The strategic ambiguity of the USA toward Taiwan, trade and tariffs and artificial intelligence with China remains. Its resolution is vital to advance reconciliation in the Indo-Pacific. The Middle East manifests growing geopolitical complexity caused by the US and Israel on one side and Islamic states and their proxy non-state armed actors on the other, scrambling to dominate the region rather than find a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. 

In South Asia, India is aspiring to make the nation great again but its responsibility lies in fostering non-reciprocal ties espoused by Gujral doctrine, respecting their sensitivity and aspirations and strengthening mutual aid.  Its strategic affinity to the US to acquire muscular power may spur a vicious arms race. China’s ties with ASEAN, African and Latin American nations are based on shared interests in security, infrastructures, connectivity, energy, finance, green technologies and development. Trade across the Pacific region is higher than that across the Atlantic.  NATO and the EU claim that durable peace in the region requires peace in the Middle East, East Asia and Ukraine’s full sovereignty. President Trump has suggested Iran not pursue nuclear ambition. 

What leverage do the EU and NATO have to become central in Ukraine peace negotiations other than diplomatic efforts in the UN and outside? In the light of President Trump’s constructive plan to historical adversary Russia and its support to the latter in the UN, how can Europe find its leverage and become effective in peace and security? President Trump has set afoot several grand strategies: open support for far right populist parties in Europe and the world, beginning of dialogue between top officials of USA and Russia aimed at resetting all parameters of ties, restarting economic cooperation, removing artificial barriers to the work of each other’s embassies, preparing for presidential meet and divulging all the sources of conflict in Ukraine and address them. 

His criticism of European nations for not scaling up their defense outlays to NATO and overregulation on trade and tariff prompted him to slash reciprocal tariffs on them and others. He has also suspended American aid for three months for most nations for not aligning with the US's national interests rather than aiding the deep state.  His statement to integrate Canada as 51st state of the US, control Panama Canal, Gulf of Mexico and Greenland to impose its hegemony in Latin America has, however, inspired the Global South and BRICS to opt for the non-Western type of multilateralism based on sovereignty and trade in their currency. 

 President Trump’s game-changing moves have alienated allies. It is yet to be seen whether it will inspire his foes to toe his line to fulfill his aim of making America great again. His withdrawal from the WHO, Human Rights Council and Paris Climate Agreement marks a deviation from America's ability to shape humanitarian and international laws. The weakening of the UN can affect its credibility and capacity to steer global governance.  American aversion to participate in the G-20 meet in South Africa can be attributed to what it calls “anti-American role.” But it is a good occasion for South Africa to stage its diplomatic posture in global politics. President Trump does not think of Russia as an aggressor and hinted to invite it in the G7 summit though European leaders, vying to fortify their defense against Russia, see US-Russia detente as a strategy to weaken it. The US is keen to lift all sanctions on Russia after a peace deal is struck. 

American approach to Munich Security Conference revealed by US Vice-President J. D. Vance shows American refusal to share the European perception and said that the threat to Europe is from within and justified the thrashing of its bureaucracy for democracy. America’s hard-headed realism has cast off its central role in the Atlantic community and alliance building owing to its federal budget and trade deficits and surging of loans to about $37 trillion. The European nations deem Russian ambition to restore its past glory as a threat to their security, democracy and economy. The European nations seem ready to send peace troops to Ukraine’s defense once a peace deal is signed. The US is planning to withdraw its NATO armies from the Baltic region, leaving Baltic and Nordic nations to boost their defense and suggesting Ukraine strike an economic deal to repay the $180 billion aid and give America access to its critical minerals.

American alienation from its allies has opened opportunities for China to build trading partnerships with Canada, Mexico and Europe after years in which China-Russia ties went beyond limits and a neutral stand on Ukraine alienated many of them. The EU thinks that China’s support to Russia has boosted its power, while the latter’s cautious, measured step acts as a stabilising force in world politics and maintains a balance with all nations for a win-win outcome. In this context, Trump sees Putin as an ally to strengthen its power to maintain global stability, not “Nixon in reverse,” as Russia deems its partnership with America on equal terms and chose its ties with China. The USA, China and Russia have relative advantages in different forms of power and cannot push back one another. But, their conflict moderating structures and policies and respect to the Westphalian and UN spirit to other nations can restore global peace.

Adaptive strategies 

 Does the resetting of US-Russia ties inspire Nepali political class to improve ties with Russia or continue with decoupling policy and remain apathetic to its proposal on development cooperation? China and Russia had helped Nepal to achieve economic independence and diversification in international relations in the past, which had been overturned by the neo-liberal lure of its political class.   Amid a global geopolitical shift, Nepal has to devise suitable adaptive strategies. Recently, the Nepal Army has shown the growth of internal and security challenges for the nation.  The wider geopolitical change has entailed the need for a coherent security strategy and coordination of all state agencies and stakeholders to promote national interests. 

The budgetary constraints following US aid withdrawal, provincial tensions, grievances of the poor, several anomic movements, climate change and artificial intelligence are critical bottlenecks for effective governance. President Trump dumped $ 20 million support to Nepal’s fiscal federalism a “fraud” while US Congressman Brian Mast sought the rationale of the previous American government to provide a $ 500,000 grant to promote atheism in Nepal. In response, the Nepali government has ordered all its administrative agencies to monitor the activities of INGOs and NGOs. The nation has fallen into the grey list of money laundering. In this context, controlling internal maladies, effective governance and balancing foreign policy are the rational steps for Nepal’s safe future.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)