RUSSIA OVERSHADOWS G7 2022 SUMMIT

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

Despite being an informal collective of ‘advanced economic’ liberal democratic states, the Group of 7 (G7) bringing together Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom and the United States have fervent goals. Held from 26 to 28 June 2022, the summit was in response to a global society capsized by division and shocks, as a call to unite and join to defend ‘universal human rights and democratic values, the rules-based multilateral order, and the resilience of democratic societies’ (G7, 2022). The viability of such remains to be seen.

Formed in 1975, leading states in a world of global economic recession induced by the OPEC oil embargo understood it may be in their mutual interest to coordinate on macroeconomic interdependencies. While it was first a forum for Finance ministers to hold annual meetings, the G7 developed into a round-table between leaders of the Western World. In 1988, Russia joined the G7, which was then named the G8 albeit temporarily until Russia’s dismissal for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

The G7 states in the contemporary, with an aggregate that represents 45 percent of the global economy in nominal terms and 10% of the world’s population, hold annual summits to coordinate economic policy goals, facilitate collective action on transnational issues and propagate neo liberal norms, in conjunction with the European Union and other invitees. All 7 member states are identified as mature and advanced democracies with a Human Development Index score of 0.800 or higher.

Unlike international organisations and groups such as NATO, the G7 group has no formal legal existence, no permanent secretariat or official members. It thus has no legally binding rules that abide by or ratify states to uphold decisions and commitments made at G7 meetings. As such, while compliance with G7 norms is procedurally voluntary, they are impacted by social norms of persuasion, influence, mutual accountability and reputation. Topics of conversation between member states have encompassed growing challenges such as counterterrorism, development, education, health, human rights and climate change.

The 2022 Summit

From 26-28 June 2022, the leaders of G7 States met in Elmau, Germany joined by the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, as well as Ukraine. Representatives included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, US President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen,

The summit focused on the Covid-19 crisis, climate change, the Russian Ukrainian conflict, and China. 

Climate Change

The shared concerns of climate change were a major topic of discussion during the 2022 Summit. The group endorsed the goals of an open and cooperative international Climate Club, in alignment with the 1.5°C pathways and hastened the implementation of the Paris agreement. The group further pledged to commit to a decarbonised transportation sector by 2030, a fully or predominantly decarbonised power sector by 2035. However, the latter may have been incentivised by political concerns of Western states to a major degree.

Liberal Democracies of the West

Liberal democracies may be understood to exist where the state subscribes to a liberal economic system and a democratic political system. A concise summary of such is as a liberal economic system proscribes significant political control over an decentralised, capitalistic, market driven economic system, as it is understood that the market mechanism is the most efficient means of linking demand to supply, market to consumer. A democracy may be understood as a domestic political model which, in conjunction with an impartial judiciary, free media and others, elected representatives aim to promote a decentralised representative governance through accountable, transparent and inclusive institutions.

By virtue of being a liberal democracy, all member states find common ground, parallel norms, alignment of macro foreign policy goals and understanding with each other. This allows the informal G7 to coordinate hard power security and economic interdependence in addition to cooperating with civil society groups to promote human rights, and uphold a democratic zone of peace in the face of non-democratic powers. A strong culture of mutual accountability exists between G7 states. Accountability may be through internal processors of the forum, where social norms allow for persuasion and disincentivize coercion. Coercion may not at all be necessary, as liberal democratic states would all be of a positive sum world view. Furthermore, the level of trade interdependence between states would act as means of checks and balances, as every state is needed by the other, thus it is in every G7 state’s interest to be in their good books.

The Illiberal Rest

Russia and China, in addition to states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are understood by the West to be illiberal states. Both major powers, albeit one a receding power, have capitalist and liberal economic systems where the state’s political machine exerts a heavy pressure on the market mechanism. While the state may be able to provide a higher quality safety net to its citizens by restraining the destructive forces of capitalism to better allocate scarce resources amongst the vulnerable, significant barriers to such exist. China’s GDP has grown at a surprising rate vis a vis other developing states, which has allowed the CCP significant geopolitical leverage. However, China’s domestic political model is authoritarian, whereby citizens do not have much say in how they are governed. Exclusive political institutions have no means of accountability or transparency, which leads to significant corruption. As Wedeman (2004) analyses, corruption is a feature of the Chinese system, thereby stifling economic and social growth. Corruption and lack of domestic checks and balances to those in power may be more apparent in Russia than China, where the control of the Kremlin and the Oligarchs have poignant effects on not just its citizens but also its neighbours; as the lack of domestic accountability may mean the lack of stringent checks balances, which then mean lesser shackles on the zero-sum ambitions.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine conflict may be interpreted as a conflict between the forces of liberal democratic values of positive peace, pluralism and self-determination versus a one man’s nostalgic dreams of a ‘Neo’ USSR. Being at complete odds, the reaffirmed condemnation of Russia’s ‘’illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine’’ by the liberal democratic G7 states is hardly a surprise. Nor is their promise of ‘’needed financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support’’ for Ukraine in its defence of its sovereignty, during its path on a free and democratic society.

The Sanctions Regime

Sanctions and more sanctions were promised by the group of seven advanced economies, who vowed to “align and expand targeted sanctions to further restrict Russia’’ in its access to key technological industrial imports and services. Such a move would severely restrict the ability to sustain their war machine thereby adhering to security commitments to Ukraine. The G7 Leaders pledged new sanctions on Russians who had committed war crimes in Ukraine, and are contributing to exacerbating “global food insecurity” by “stealing and exporting Ukrainian grain”. New penalties on Russian gold exports were further proposed, as well as a cap on the oil price to phase out global dependency on Russian energy.

However, a complete restriction of the import of Russian energy may be an ambitious task. European nations such as France get a quarter of their oil and 40% of their gas from Russia. While Germany has halted the progress of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the EU has currently agreed to reduce its Russian gas imports by only two-thirds. President Biden however is banning all Russian oil and gas imports to the US, and the UK is ready to phase out Russian oil by the end of the year. The US, UK and Ukrainian Leaders are keen for other G7 nations to follow suit.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who joined in on a trio of meetings via Videolink, stated that the summit will show "who is our friend, who is our partner and who sold us out and betrayed us". He reiterated his calls for fresh deliveries of weaponry, as he believes Russia will want to extend the war until winter wherein they could make new territorial gains to consolidate power. The financial support of G7 allies in 2022 already amounts to more than USD 2.8 billion in humanitarian aid, and a further USD 29.5 billion is pledged in supporting Ukrainian reconstruction.

China and the BRI

A growing China poses a “threefold threat” to G7 countries — economically, ideologically, and geopolitically. China’s GDP is second only to the US and it is fast catching up. China’s growing state-overseen tech industry, fuelled by globalisation and interdependence, is fast spreading a culture of surveillance and censorship, which act as means for the globalisation of authoritarianism. Said authoritarian ideals are further spread through Chinese geopolitical projects and alliances such as the BRI, which usually focus on developing, quasi democratic states with little to no accountability such as those in Africa and Central Asia. Furthermore, China’s action with regard to the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region and its influence in Hong Kong have drawn condemnation from G7 members. China’s growing trade and defence ties with Russia have also caused concerns.

A Western Counter to the BRI

A Western counter to the BRI emerged during the G7 summit, aptly named Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The BRI is a global infrastructure development strategy which was developed as per Chinese leader Xi Jinping's vision in 2013, as a means for China to assume a greater role in global politics by easing access to China and its capabilities and boosting global GDP. Dubbed the Belt and Road Initiative and with over 145 countries signed up, the BRI is currently constructing a network of overland routes, rail transportation, sea lanes and energy pipelines to connect China to Southeast Asia, Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. However, the project has been criticised as a tool to increase China’s political leverage in developing countries. Thereby, the BRI has been criticised for neocolonialism, economic imperialism.

In such a context, the G7 had launched a $600bn Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative infrastructure plan to counter China, in private and public funds to finance infrastructure in developing low and middle-income countries over five years. By working to narrow the global investment gap, the B3W would create new Just Energy Transition Partnerships with Indonesia, India, Senegal and Vietnam, building on existing partnerships with South Africa.

While US President Biden understood that “Developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks (thus) feel the impacts … and they have a harder time recovering,” he stressed that the B3W “isn’t aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone”. Despite being dwarfed in comparison to the multi-trillion-dollar BRI, the B3W offers means of accountability, transparency and mutual trust between the neo liberal developed states and the developing states. The initiative would, according to Biden, further allow developing states to “see the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies”. While a cynic may argue that the developed have no interest in the developing other than exploitation and/or self-interest, and such may be observed to be true, President Biden may have been right when he said that underdevelopment is “not just a humanitarian concern, but an economic and a security concern for all”.

Mutual gains depend on interdependence, and without developing countries, there cannot be any sustainable recovery of the world economy. However, the development of low-income states is necessary but insufficient for a holistic global economic recovery, which remains shadowed by the conflict of value systems: liberal and illiberal, democratic and authoritarian.

 

SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE 2022: DEEPENING DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

On 12^th June, Asia Pacific’s leading forum for defence diplomacy - the Shangri-La Dialogue ended after a pandemic-induced three-year hiatus. While the Dialogue is procedurally focused on cultivating a sense of security community within the Asia Pacific, which it solely lacks, this year’s event concluded under the uncertain shadow of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the increasingly tenuous US-Sino relations.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is an intergovernmental security conference held in Singapore, by the London based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in collaboration with the government of Singapore. The Dialogue is chiefly attended by state actors such as Military chiefs, Defence and Foreign Ministers. However, non-state participants too, such as legislators, academic experts, distinguished journalists and business delegates attend the summit. Named after the host venue since 2002, the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, the forum serves as a platform for debate, expression of views and discussion on specific issues through bilateral meetings. However, off the record meetings are also held, chaired by IISS, to advance policy goals more freely.

Apart from the host nation, participating countries for the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue included Australia, Cambodia, Brunei, Chile, France, Canada, China, India, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Laos, South Korea, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Vietnam, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Dialogue was attended by about 500 delegates from more than 40 countries.

Forum Proceedings

The 2022 Dialogue, as all previous sessions, was commenced by Dr John Chipman, the Director-General and Chief Executive of the IISS. This year’s keynote address was given by Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, who set the overall tone for the dialogue - the need for security cooperation and collective action between state and non-state actors in the Asia pacific to counter growing threats in the region and beyond. Broad topics such as the US Indo-Pacific Strategy - a significant shift of resources from the Middle eastern theatre, Competition in a Multipolar world, Military Modernisation, Prescriptions for Myanmar and China’s vision for Regional Order were covered. 

US-China Relations - a String Pulled Taut

The 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue was a significant milestone in contemporary US-China relations. The forum facilitated a meeting between the U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe, the first face-to-face encounter since President Biden's inauguration in January 2021. Any hope or reassuring signs of reinstalling lines of direct communication were dispelled by the increasingly sparring headline speeches and subsequent conversations between the two nations, on topics ranging from the status of Taiwan, proceedings within the South China Sea and questions and concerns surrounding grave human rights violations within China.

The US primary criticism of China’s international conduct centred around the latter’s coercive and aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea, wherein China has constructed man made islands within the shared seaway in an attempt to solidify its claim to the areas enclosed by a ‘9-dash line’ which is claimed by Beijing to grant it exclusive rights, despite non-recognition by international law. “Indo-Pacific countries shouldn’t face political intimidation, economic coercion, or harassment by maritime militias,” Secretary Austin asserted, as “the PRC’s moves threaten to undermine security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” He further reaffirmed the US position to defend its interests and those of its allies despite increased Chinese movement, mobilisation and pressure.

Secretary Austin’s Chinese counterpart's response was as headline jarring as his. Minister Wei Fenghe described his country’s position as one of self-defence in a global world of zero-sum, self-interested actors. Wei acknowledged his country’s increased nuclear and naval capabilities, in a speech peppered with warnings to tread carefully and avoid Chinese provocation. He further reaffirmed China’s strong stance of a rising great power, one of self-defence but also a crave for international legitimacy through recognition as a peaceful actor. Wei stressed that “It is a historic and strategic mistake to take China as a threat or enemy”. To ensure global peace and development, by virtue of China now being a great power, Wei called for a stop in attempts to “contain China, to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, and stop harming China’s interests,” signalling that peace was conditional on China’s free reign. His speech further contained a stronger reiteration of the Chinese position on the disputed island of Taiwan - “If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China – let me be clear – we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end.”

Shared Ukrainian Costs

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in this year’s Dialogue for the first time through a video link teleconference. Highlighting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he urged the attendees of primarily Asian states to “remember that support and attention is not only for Ukraine but for (the greater Asia) as well, to ensure that our and your future is safe’’ in the contemporary globalised world. Despite Ukraine’s geographical distance from Asia, Russia’s invasion of his country has global implications, as the political, social and economic distance between countries are much shorter in the present than they ever were. Thus, the costs of war are shared between states, through trade interdependence, geopolitical institutions, and have direct effects such as rising global inflation.

Mr Zelenskyy further stressed that there are ideological costs, as “it is on the Ukrainian battlefield that the future rules of this world are being decided along with the boundaries of the possible.” His position drew clear parallels and a not-so-subtle nod to China's desire for Taiwanese reunification. The political alignments and the ideological divides of the attendee states were made abundantly clear as Prime Minister of Japan Kishida noted that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” further adding to the underlying tension of the Dialogue.

Collective Concerns of the Divided

Despite the lack of collective action on political qualms and tensions owing to non alignment of political compasses, the attendee states of the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue remained receptive to prescriptions for collective concerns. The Dialogue served as a platform to tackle contemporary issues such as global underdevelopment and need of environmental security as a response to climate change, and the green defence agenda wherein the low-lying nations of Maldives, Polynesia and Micronesia were focused upon. The scope of prescriptions for global development and climate degradation are far beyond a single state, and collective action of all nations has shared global benefits. However, talks of nuclear disarmament were pushed by Prime Minister Kishida, who raised the potential for nuclear weapons of China, Russia and North Korea, to cause devastation more than that which was experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite such a statement representing a significant change in the security environment, as it differed from the zero-sum, negative peace structure of the past, it was not well received possibly as one nation may seek to gain more from the said action than the other.

Why They Do What They Do

Security forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue would be those where one is likely to hear more bad news than good. However, the 2022 forum was not so much a “glass half empty but more of a vessel placed precariously close to the edge of a table, one small slip away from smashing to pieces” (Sachdeva, 2022). As New Zealand Defence Minister Henare noted, there existed “an underlying tension”.

Borrowing from the English School of International Relations (Buzan et al 2002, Bull 1977) would contribute to an apt analysis of the Shangri-La Dialogue. Great power interests define international aspirations and ambitions, even in regional institutions. The Dialogue subscribed to the broad tensions of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the US-China hostilities. Military diplomacy and international institutions which are dominated by great power interests, and smaller developing states are more rule takers than agenda setters. Further, international and weak regional institutions would have little sway in changing great power behaviour and are platforms for great power machinations. Weak regional institutions and forums would have less stringent rules, and less enforcement of such rules which would serve as checks and balances to the power of larger states. Fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue, as opposed to stronger institutions such as NATO do “not provide much in the way of reassurance about the future trajectory of the relationship (between states) and only reinforces the sense that competition between the two powers is likely to linger thereafter” (Parameswaran 2019).

The fact that the sour relations between US and China continued on since the 2019 Dialogue, which was dominated by the subject of heightened U.S.-China competition serves to solidify the aforementioned understanding.

Despite such dire notions for international cooperation and mitigating global anarchy, the Shangri-La Dialogue represents a necessary, albeit insufficient platform for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences between states. Institutions are only as strong as the rules that states are willing to enforce on themselves. However, institutions and fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are still important platforms which aim to resolve statist tensions through negotiated compromise and diffused reciprocity over hard power coercion and war (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The contemporary world is interconnected, with the space and time between events and reactions to such decreasing at an exponential rate. The contemporary world cannot afford to disregard the power of diplomacy for in the words of Henry Kissinger, despite animosities of history, diplomacy serves as means of restraining power.

 

RCEP: Recipe for 21st Century Regional Cohesiveness?

 

by Trivan Annakarage

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has been signed into operation and is gaining traction owing to its magnitude and composition. As of 2020, the collective Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all member states in the regional trade bloc amounted to 30% of global GDP (US$ 38.81 trillion)[1]. This figure is larger than the GDP of both NAFTA 2.0 (US$ 22.20 trillion) and the European Union (US$ 15.17 trillion) combined[2]. Moreover, the 15 member states represent a cumulative population of 2.2 billion people, amounting to 30% of world population[3]. Thus RCEP is currently the largest trade bloc to have existed in the history of multilateralism. At a time when the concept of multilateralism itself is brought into question, a regional trading bloc of such magnitude gives credence to the potential of RCEP.

Background

Signed on November 15, 2020 when Vietnam hosted a virtual ASEAN summit[4], RCEP represents three regions - Southeast Asia, Far East Asia, and Australia & Oceania. The Southeast Asian nation-states include all 10 ASEAN members namely, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The Far East Asian countries include China, Japan and South Korea. The two countries from Australia & Oceania are Australia and New Zealand. RCEP is a key milestone for ASEAN since it was instrumental in its formation, and was able to bring China into the grouping without creating a fallout with Japan, South Korea and Australia, that experience tensed relations with Beijing.

RCEP is geared towards creating a tight knit market where member states can benefit from imports and exports with minimum trade barriers. In addition to trade in goods and services other focus areas include investment, intellectual property, dispute settlement and e-commerce followed by small and medium enterprises[5]. The latter is a very important focus area since SMEs comprise over 90% of business establishments in the 15 member countries[6]. Within the first 20 years of the trading bloc’s existence, RCEP plans to eliminate 90% of tariff imports between signatories[7] [8]. Furthermore, with the increasing traffic in the online market space and innovation that takes place in these regions, RCEP would establish common rules for e-commerce and intellectual property rights. The trade bloc has been criticised for not being explicit on labour laws, environmental protection and government subsidies[9]. Nevertheless, analysts argue that initiatives spearheaded by ASEAN begin with a broad vision and are gradually streamlined and achieved with necessary and timely amendments as time progress. This strategy has contributed to the longevity and relevance of ASEAN and would hopefully do the same for RCEP.[10] 

China’s prospects

The advanced democratic economies in RCEP (Japan, South Korea and Australia) are close allies of the United States. The recently invigorated military alliance; Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) results in US, Japan, India and Australia’s joint effort to curtail China’s growing military prowess in the Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific. Against these developments RCEP becomes more intriguing as the United States is not part of it. This creates an absence of a power balance, with China being the most influential country in the grouping in terms of its economic and military might. If member countries work cohesively, RCEP would pull the economic centre of gravity closer to the East[11] [12]. The possibility of such a favourable outcome has therefore aided in softening the relationship between these three countries and China for a much larger purpose of economic prosperity.

The other trade bloc that would have rivalled RCEP was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which was signed by 14 countries in 2016. President Donald Trump however withdrew USA from the trade bloc in 2017. This paved the road for the creation of RCEP due to the lack of momentum and cohesiveness in TPP[13]. Today, nine countries have membership in both RCEP and TPP.

In November 2019, New Delhi decided to stay out of RCEP sending out mixed signals. Prime Minister Modi outlined that the trading bloc did not address India’s need to commit to such an agreement.[14] Potential adverse effects to domestic industrial and agricultural sectors from Chinese manufactured goods and dairy products from Australia and New Zealand were cited as reasons[15] [16]. Yet experts predict Indian pharmaceuticals, cotton yarn and services industries would have benefitted enormously given the size of the market available[17].

If there was a vision for RCEP to become a mighty economic force from the East, this may have fallen short since India is the third largest economy in Asia after China and Japan. This may have been the reason why RCEP has provided flexibility to India to become a member-state in the future whenever New Delhi deems it fit[18]. However, Singapore’s former representative to the United Nations, Kishore Mahbubani, stated that the absence of both USA and India in this trace bloc has paved the way for China to proceed with its geopolitical ambitions and to create a unanimous economic ecosystem centred around RCEP where China would be its nucleus[19].   

Prospects and Concerns

It is clear that China, Japan and South Korea will reap the most out of this trade bloc[20]. For China, RCEP helps to leverage its position as a world power and invigorates her geopolitical ambitions for world ascendency through the Belt and Road Initiative. Moreover, it provides China with the opportunity to tighten her cultural affinity with a growing ethnic Chinese community across Southeast Asia. For Japan and South Korea, RCEP would be a new market to export their high-end industrial products as the quality of life in ASEAN and its share of billionaires is on the rise. It is an opportunity to enhance soft-power diplomacy in ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand through their respective entertainment industries. For Australia and New Zealand, RCEP is beneficial for an economic recovery strategy from Covid-19 as they access new export markets and explore investment in Southeast Asia[21] [22]. RCEP would provide greater access to developed economies for Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos whose economies largely depend on exports of finished garments, agricultural produce and commodities[23]. Countries such as Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia would benefit from further investments in the tech industry. RCEP would have less impact on Singapore and Brunei since these countries have already established strong trade relations with the advanced economies of Far East Asia, and Australia & Oceania. If all member states are equally optimistic in the success of this trade bloc, RCEP might gradually bring about a solution to the ongoing disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea. This is too early to judge though.               

A major concern is that since signing the agreement in 2020, not all member states have ratified the treaty. Currently only four countries - China, Japan, Singapore and Thailand - have ratified the treaty. The latter was the first to ratify it. This is a clear indication that there is opposition to this bloc domestically in these countries where ratification is pending. It must be taken into account that many countries in South Asia have a booming tech industry. RCEP might be a threat to this domestic industry due to flooding of low cost but equal/better quality Chinese imports. Further integration with the Chinese economy would mean Tokyo and Canberra being unable to fully commit themselves to supporting Washington’s geopolitical rivalries against Beijing. This would be detrimental to US influence over Southeast and Far East Asia.

The gradual ratification and operationalization of RCEP will undoubtedly lead to an economic revolution that has the potential to create a model for regional cohesiveness further into the 21^st century. However early ratification and realization of strategies remain crucial at this juncture.

---

[1] New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade (2021). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Avaialble at https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership-rcep/rcep-overview 

[2]BBC News (2020). RCEP: Asia Pacific Countries form the largest trading bloc. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54949260

[3] Shotaro Tani (2020). India stays away from RCEP talks in Bali. Nikkei Asia. Available at https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade/India-stays-away-from-RCEP-talks-in-Bali 

[4] CNA (2020). Asia-Pacific nations sign world’s largest trade pact RCEP. Available at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/rcep-trade-pact-asean-summit-singapore-china-13534960

[5] Laura Zhou (2020). Explainer: What is RCEP and what does an Indo-Pacific free trade deal offer China? South China Morning Post. Available at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3109436/what-rcep-and-what-does-indo-pacific-free-trade-deal-offer

[6] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Available at https://asean.org/?static_post=rcep-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership

[7] Ibid^5 

[8] Ibis^6

[9] Keith Bradsher & Anna Swanson (2020). China-led Trade Pact is Signed, in Challenge to U.S. The New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/business/china-trade-rcep.html

[10] Peter Petri & Michael Plummer (2020). RCEP: A new trade agreement that will shape global economic and politics. Brookings. Available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/11/16/rcep-a-new-trade-agreement-that-will-shape-global-economics-and-politics/

[11] CNA (2020). US being left behind after Asia forms world’s biggest trade bloc RCEP: US Chamber. Available at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/rcep-us-chamber-of-commerce-left-behind-asia-economy-trade-13576598

[12] Amy Gunia (2020). Why the U.S. Could be the Big Loser in the Huge RCEP Trade Deal between China and 14 Other Countries. Time. Available at https://time.com/5912325/rcep-china-trade-deal-us/

[13] Charles Riley (2017). Trump’s decision to kill TPP leaves door open for China. CNN. Available at https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/tpp-trump-china/

[14] Ibid^15

[15] ET Bureu (2019). India decides to opt out of RCEP, says key concerns not addressed. The Economic Times. Available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/india-decides-to-opt-out-of-rcep-says-key-concerns-not-addressed/articleshow/71896848.cms

[16] Business Standard (2020). What is RCEP? Available at https://www.business-standard.com/about/what-is-rcep 

[17] Ibid^15

[18] Bangkok Post (2020). What happens now the RCEP trade deal has been signed? Available at https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/2020503/what-happens-now-the-rcep-trade-deal-has-been-signed-

[19] Kishore Mahbubani (2021). Why Attempts to Build a New Anti-China Alliance Will Fail. Foreign Policy. Available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/27/anti-china-alliance-quad-australia-india-japan-u-s/

[20] Ibid^2

[21] Qu Caiyun (2020). Australia needs Southeast Asia for market, not politics. Global Times. Available at https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1203633.shtml

[22] Ibid^1

[23] Heimkhemra Suy & Phnom Penh (2021). How RCEP benefits Cambodia in the long term. East Asia Forum. Available at https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/02/13/how-rcep-benefits-cambodia/

‘EXTREMIST DEMOCRACY’: Reflections on the January Rebellion

by George I. H. Cooke

The propagation of extremism, the political patronage it receives, and the fueling of division in society by extremist elements and their actions, is the very antithesis of democracy and democratic principles. Extremist activities are said to have spawned in developing countries, or those that belong to the global south. It is often claimed that such countries are politically immature, possess insecure governance mechanisms, have denied their people liberties and are themselves to blame for the problems they encounter.

Yet it was the United States of America, identified as a beacon of democracy that faced one of its greatest trials on 6^th January 2021, when the country walked a thin line. A country seen to be at the top of the power ladder, economically surging ahead of the rest, financially the giant amongst other stalwarts, and the home of the Statue of Liberty was the location of the latest explosion of extremism. Supremacy of one community, one party, and one individual remained the narcissistic magnet that galvanized anti-democratic forces and spurred them on. As these elements used violent means to break into the sacrosanct halls of democracy on Capitol Hill, while democratic values were being upheld in the chambers and the recognition of presidential transition was at play, questions have arisen:

Has democracy become a victim of itself?

Has the rise of extremism reached feverish levels?

Has the security apparatus failed?

Democracy

6^th January 2021 could be the harbinger of a new form of democracy, which may be termed Extremist Democracy. This form goes beyond the sphere of radical democracy into territory wherein the achievement of an individual’s goals supersedes all else, and gives effect to freedom of the individual as the supreme form over all else. It is fanaticism taken to an extreme, with an individual, and in this scenario a President, who remained intolerant of the results of an election that pronounced his opponent the winner. The January Rebellion was borne out of democracy. It was a response to democracy. It was also an attack on democracy.

On 6^th January 1941, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt stood in the US Congress and delivered his State of the Union Address highlighting the need to protect freedom in his iconic speech on ‘Four Freedoms’ wherein he talked about the need to protect universal freedom that all people possessed.  Stressing the true value of democracy, he cautioned against the absence of freedom and the rampant effect it would have on America and the rest of the world. He was speaking at the beginning of a year which remains significant as the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 drew the United States into the Second World War and heralded the position and platform that was created for that country from then to date.

Eighty years later another President, Donald J. Trump stood outside the White House and urged his supporters to use those very same freedoms that his predecessor had described and to march on Capitol Hill. While addressing the crowds he urged them to never give up their struggle to see him re-elected to the office of President. Trump stressed that “We will never give up. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.” Seen as a clarion call to his supporters, the words of the President were an encouragement of the masses, their attack on the halls of democracy and the death of people, as well as vandalism of state property and hours of carnage and destruction, all of which was beamed across the world.

Has Roosevelt’s espousal of democracy resulted in society benefitting to the extent that it now formulates its own interpretation by taking it to an extreme? Here the essence of democracy has been submerged, and instead democracy has become a victim of itself.

Extremism

The notion that one’s own beliefs supersede all else, the lack of respect of the other, the inability to see the other for what they stand for rather than who they are, and the self-styled blinkers that restrict ones vision to anything else but what one wants everyone to see and know, has resulted in the rise, and spread of extremism in societies across the world. The recent rise of nationalism, wherein a ‘nation’ is identified to represent a community along narrow lines, rather than a country in a holistic manner, has seen the commitment of acts of violence, the taking of lives, and the destruction of property. The economic and financial impact is yet another arena which remains noteworthy.

At no stage of their actions do extremist elements reflect upon the damage they do to their cause and community. They fail to see the ramifications of their actions, and the deepening of prejudice against that which they espouse. It is this failure that leads to their subsequent downfall.

Since the attack on Pearl Harbour eighty years ago, the United States has always taken a high moral ground on human rights and values, their dissemination and their safeguarding in countless instances across scores of countries. The stance taken has been one in which those affected were asked to adhere to better and improved standards. They were questioned on their choice of policy and its implementation. They were sanctioned, reprimanded, identified at multilateral fora and accused of failing their people as a whole.

Yet today it is the United States that is a victim of extremism. It is America that needs the rhetoric to stop, that needs the healing, and most of all needs to respect diversity of view and vision. This has got to seep into a society that is determined to see it entrenched in other societies around the world. There is much work that the Biden administration would have to contend with. The absence of tolerance and the inability to move beyond tolerance into the realm of respect has driven the extremist elements in United States and in societies across the world to embrace violence to justify their own stance.  Hence it is leaders who are called upon to act with strength of purpose and will, to do what is right by the general populace and the future of the country and not merely what is preferred by a segment.

The usage of violence to achieve ones goals is akin to the engagement in terrorism. Countries have experienced egoistic individuals, who utilised the grievances of peoples and communities to allegedly espouse causes but have done so through the means of terror. Such individuals, now relegated to history, identified violence as the means to their goals, and operated rigid mechanisms of violence but did so within democratic societies, and against democratically elected leaders and governments. What then is the difference between terrorist leaders who grab power through the might of the bullet, and democratically elected ones who, possessing the will of the ballot, choose, when faced with defeat, to resort to the same means as terrorist leaders?

Extremist elements have drawn countries into an abysmal hole. They have destroyed the fabric of society, pushed moderates to an extreme, and ensured the solidification of biases through their views and actions. The wrecking of havoc remains at the heart of their mandate, as they try to gain their objectives by any means possible irrespective of the impact their deeds have on themselves, their cause, and their communities. The Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka are just two of the numerous incidents. Yet the divisions brought on by extremists increase the frequency and intensity of violent incidents and are today the bane of any society.

Security

Freedom is guaranteed as long as it is secured. Failure to secure it, results in its defeat and destruction. Whilst democracy remains value-based, and extremism is a form of radicalization also based on beliefs, it is the security apparatus that needs to thwart and root out any form of threat to freedom. The inability to secure the most pivotal of democratic institutions in the world remains highly questionable. Capitol Hill has been the home of the US Senate and House of Representatives for over two centuries. It is the repository of democratic traditions and values that have been passed down for generations. How then could such a secure, pivotal building in the capital of the United States of America be infiltrated by marauding extremists, especially while sessions were ongoing, and sessions that were to consolidate the election victory of a President of America? Failure on the part of the security mechanism resulted in the carnage that was wrecked by extremist elements and ensured that 6^th January 2021 entered the annals of history as another dark day for democracy and freedom.

An intensification of security has remained a critical concern for the United States when carried out in other countries. Those which have been victims of terrorism and extremism have resorted to a bolstering of security for purposes of defence and to prevent any form of threat to their societies. This has drawn the ire of America and her leaders on numerous occasions, which see such intensification as a direct attack on democracy. How will the United States now balance this apparent dichotomy? America, like other countries is today faced with the same security dilemma. Although this dilemma is relative it still remains a critical issue which demands immediate attention.

Roosevelt called for the safeguarding of democratic values. Presidents before him and after him have done the same. Trump himself has opted to toe the line at this late hour and has now called for a smooth transition having realized the futility of his demands and the mob approach. Thus the January Rebellion becomes the milestone at which America, other countries and most importantly their leaders realize the relevance of security and the need to thwart those who support and/or engage in terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations. The January Rebellion becomes the rationale for implementing the true meaning of democracy and learning to respect that which it espouses, so as to ensure that the freedom enshrined in a democracy doesn’t erode that which its attempts to safeguard.

This Rebellion is cry of warning to countries to remain vigilant at all times. Those who are determined to wreck havoc, kill people and go on the rampage, do so using the attributes that democracy affords them. Paying scant regard for the upholding of democratic values, they remain a cause for concern, but more significantly are a threat to the freedom of all. These are the instances in which democracy often becomes its own victim.

Future Trajectory

On 6^th January 1661, the Fifth Monarchists attempted to seize control of the city of London, but were unsuccessful. The extreme sect of the 17^th century was determined to rid themselves of a leader, their King. The extreme sect of the 21^st century is determined to ensure continuity of a leader, their President. In 2021 it is assumed that societies, communities and individuals have evolved, in their rationale, understanding and ability to comprehend the true essence of democracy. Whilst the January Rebellion highlighted the inability of some to evolve in just manner, it is also a moment of reckoning to all countries that times are changing.

It is not possible for countries like United States of America to take the high moral ground anymore. Extremism has been present in the past, is currently prevalent, and worryingly appears to continue to persist in the US in the future. This is not only an American problem, nor is it one that can be placed on a particular country, ideology or community. It is a collective issue that demands collective action. However for that action to be taken there has to be comprehension of the problem. Sauce for the goose remains sauce for the gander. Extremism in the United States, in New Zealand, in Sri Lanka or in any country on Earth is still extremism, and must not and cannot be condoned. Until all countries and their leaders realize this, we will continue to see extremism raging, terrorists resurging and democracy under threat.

It is now time for America to engage with other countries that face threats to their democratic forms of governance, and similar forms of extremism that persist in their societies. It is time to realize that terrorism and extremism are not developing country problems, nor are they issues brought on due to want and despair. It is lack of tolerance, lack of respect, and a lack of understanding.

The ensuing days and the action of American leaders will become pivotal to the position the country has enjoyed to date. Whether an impeachment is passed to remove Donald J. Trump days ahead of the end of his term and thereby bar him from running again, whether the extremists are quelled, or whether the security chiefs are changed on Capitol Hill and security in general is given a deeper degree of thought, all of this would depend on the actions taken in the days ahead.

Bi-partisan collective action within America and with the world is the need for the hour. If democracy is at the heart of governance, then democratic values have to be centred upon for decision making. It is time for collective realization that challenges to democracy are common causes for concern and need to be addressed together, in a strong and coherent manner. They affect all countries and their democratically elected leadership and hence it is imperative that cooperative action, especially through multilateralism remains the arena of operation. It is thus an era of equality, as the challenges affect all, and need solutions from all, for all.

Donald J. Trump continuously campaigned on the slogan of ‘Make America Great Again’. Irrespective of the verdict on that call, what he has succeeded in doing is making America equal to all.