Tag: U.S

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s Concerns are Legitimate 

Posted on By Benjamin Musanjufu Kavubu

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.

To understand why in the first place Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine we have to go back in time, we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the break up of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of a multiple ethnic states, that were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. It’s end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.

Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow the move was very much about offensive realism which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where survival of a given country is the most important thing. Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure it’s safety, according to John Mearsheimer this is supposed to be a constant endvour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points especially when great powers are involved. In this case it’s Russia on one side and the USA and it’s allies on the other.

Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organization which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment to Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold war there is a promise in place that NATO never expands “one inch eastward.”

Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population, its no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities, during the conflict military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian speaking population in the Donbas regions. The international community which is made up of the West took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine, Washington supported Ukrainian speaking people and sidelined the other side an act that exacerbated the situation prompting Russia to come in and take its side.

According to Professor Jeffery Sachs Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example Russia’s ties to Crimea which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukraine Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.

For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those that have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq among others states. Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same point ignoring regional powers like Russia, of course any country would react in a self interest manner.

The situation in Ukraine goes back years, it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, it’s strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent water ways that connects it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries. It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far here in Uganda. From February of 2022 the world has experienced shifts in alliances, here in Africa there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is very vital for peace.

Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture and this has affected the world food security bring about shortages and price hikes, Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking that has resulted into higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflict across the world.

Before this escalation Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.

Before 2014 if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia. If only the West has seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happening. In the event President Trump in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original Reasons for the escalation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

 

 

 

Is China a Democracy?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Ernest Jovan Talwana

One of the hardest – and perhaps most controversial definitions in political literature today is democracy. What is democracy? Who decides what is democratic? Is there a universal value attached to democracy? Do all people, from all cultures, from all histories, and from all social-economic conditions, share common perspectives on what is or is not “democratic?” Is democracy about the processes of governance or the purposes and/or results of governance?

These are relevant and hard questions to settle in our contemporary political world. China is an interesting country to discuss on this topic because it is internationally considered to be among the least democratic countries in the world. (Here, I use the word “internationally” loosely to mostly mean the Western international community.) Out of 176 countries indexed in 2023, China ranked the 172nd least democratic country in the world, with a label of being a “Hard Autocracy.” This is a claim worth inquiring into, and consequently deconstructing. Often, when we talk about a country being “democratic,” we are referring to the values we cherish and thus attach to democracy. But those values are neither universal nor permanently fixed. They are values appreciated differently in different societies.

Every society’s experience, both historical and contemporary, shapes its national value systems, which inform its politics. As such, it would be misleading to assess every country’s political system based on the yardstick of Western understanding on democracy and autocracy. In fact, forcing a particular society’s political-value-standard onto every other society, is the quintessential embodiment of undemocratic behaviour. Therefore, before we understand whether China is a democracy or not, we need to first inquire into whether the label of China being a “Hard Autocracy” is from the billion Chinese people or from the mind of a guy working for a think tank or government agency in a Western capital somewhere.

Indeed, some studies challenge some western main scholarships findings on this topic. For example, Tony Saich, a Daewoo Professor of International Affairs and director of the Ash Centre explains that their 15 years quest to build a firmer understanding of Chinese opinion “found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there is very high satisfaction with the central government” with 95.5% of respondents saying “were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing. Compared to Gallup’s findings which revealed that only 38% of U.S citizens were satisfied with the American federal government, and aware that democracy is about majority, one can conclude that to brand China “hard autocracy” is nothing but a smear campaign.

China is a very different society from the United States of America, Britain, Norway, or even Uganda. The Chinese have diverse opinions on many things—just like all people in all places—but they share a common set of ideals, interests, or values that they pursue and want to realize. Their ideals shape what is democratic for them, and it doesn’t matter whether that ultimate thing they want out of politics is similar to what Americans or Norwegians want out of their politics.

China has a different set of prerequisites that its citizens follow to both choose and also hold public officials to account. As long as those prerequisites are met within the Chinese system, that process is democratic for them. The problem comes when the world’s all-knowing people from the West criticise the system established and upheld by the billion Chinese people because it doesn’t appeal to the political taste of the handful of millions of Europeans and Americans.

No one other than Chinese citizens has the political right to question China’s intrinsic brand of democracy. It is likely that citizens of Western countries value their democracy because it serves their interests and upholds their ideals and value systems. Those values might differ from what people in other countries, even in the Western world, or within different states in the United States want. But that doesn’t challenge the “democraticness” of their democracy. This principle should be applied when analysing China’s democracy too.

In China, the political administration developed what they conceptualised as a “whole-process people’s democracy.” The Chinese government translated this concept into relevant democratic values, which its public institutions are bound by and which the government strives to realize. China defines the whole-process people’s democracy as one that “integrates process-oriented democracy with results-oriented democracy, procedural democracy with substantive democracy, direct democracy with indirect democracy, and people’s democracy with the will of the state.” They understand this to be a model of socialist democracy that covers all aspects of the democratic process and all sectors of society. For them, it is “a true democracy that works.”

If what the Chinese wanted out of democracy was improved standards of living, their government over the last four decades has achieved that. Who can question whether that is not democracy for them? It is understood that in the Western world, a country is known to be democratic if citizens rise up frequently to challenge government authority. But this understanding of social behaviour blinds one to the nuance that within traditional Chinese philosophy, the preservation of social harmony is what is considered respectable order, not disruptive behavior. As such, Chinese citizens could be getting more from their government by maintaining the orderly political contestation that the ostentatious political activity experienced in the West.

We need to understand that democracy is not a decorative piece of ribbon picked and worn by every country to show off. It is rather an instrument through which public concerns are addressed. As long as China addresses the concerns of the Chinese people, that is democracy for them. The level of efficiency and order in the Chinese government are not questioned often. That is a big vote for the trust the citizens have in the democracy of China.

The author is a research fellow at the Development Watch Center.