Post-American World?

3 • 2017 The Post-American World? Global Politics, China, Syria & More current events at cejiss.org © cejiss 2017 cejiss acts as a forum for advanced exploration of international and security studies. It is the mission of cejiss to provide its readers with valuable resources regarding the current state of international and European relations and security. To that end, cejiss pledges to publish articles of only the highest calibre and make them freely available to scholars and interested members of the public in both printed and electronic forms. editor in chief Mitchell Belfer executive editor David Erkomaishvili managing director of submissions Kateřina Bartošová associate editors Imad El-Anis, Jean Crombois, Bryan Groves, Jason Whiteley Muhammad Atif Khan book reviews editor Adisa Avdić web and support Metropolitan University Prague language editing Sheldon Kim editorial board Javaid Rehman, Ibrahim A. El-Hussari, Efraim Inbar Tanya Narozhna, Michal Romancov, Marat Terterov, Yuliya Zabyelina Natalia Piskunova, Gary M. Kelly, Kyle Atwell, Ladislav Cabada, Harald Haelterman Nik Hynek, Petr Just, Karel B. Müller, Suresh Nanwani, Tomas Pezl, Milada Polisenska Victor Shadurski, Nicole Gallina, Nelli Babayan, Salvador Santino F. Regilme, Jr. Mils Hills, Marek Neuman, Fikret Čaušević, Francesco Giumelli, Benjamin Tallis Adriel Kasonta, Takashi Hosoda, Prem Mahadevan, Jack Sharples, Michal Kolmaš Vügar İmanbeyli, Ostap Kushnir, Gabriela Ozel Volfová Central European Journal of International & Security Studies C/o Metropolitan University Prague Dubečská 900/10, 100 31, Prague, Czech Republic Tel.: +420 724 587 171, Fax: +420 274 817 190, [email protected] cejiss is published by Metropolitan University Prague Press Printed in the eu issn: 1802-548x e-issn 1805-482x cejiss is not responsible for the contents of any external hyperlinks. The views expressed in this issue are solely those views of the respective authors and do not represent those of cejiss and its boards. Contents Volume 11, Issue 3, September 2017 Executive 6 The Dilemma of US Leadership Editor’s David Erkomaishvili Analysis Research 9 From the End of History to the Post-American World Articles Global Politics, Economy and Security at the Turn of the Epoch Miloš Balabán 37 The Alawites and the Labyrinthine Routes of Peace in Syria Michal Prokop 59 Features, Aims and Limits of Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy Federico Donelli 84 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and post-Soviet Central Asia New Multilateral Bank Formation in the Context of China’s Economic Interaction with post-Soviet Central Asian Countries Ksenia Muratshina 107 The Beijing Consensus Characteristics of China’s Official Development Finance in Ghana, 2000–2013 Iva Sojková Book Reviews 143 Between Survivability and Crime The Nature of Informal Practices in post-Communist Societies Reviewed by Ostap Kushnir 147 Managing the Undesirables Refugee Camps and Humanitarian Government Reviewed by Wendy Booth 150 The Hybridity of Terrorism Reviewed by Michael Becker Executive Editor’s Analysis The Dilemma of US Leadership David Erkomaishvili When Barack Obama came to power in 2009 he was quick to define the focal point of his first presidency— global denuclearisation. It wasn’t too long before Obama and his newly elected Russian coun- terpart Dmitry Medvedev met in Prague to ink the New START Treaty. Everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. The tone set by current US President Donald Trump could not be more different. Unlike his predecessor, Trump has prioritised domestic issues over foreign policy. Yet, despite the desire to focus on fixing internal cracks such as illegal migration the Trump administration has confronted a long list of global challenges. April’s air strike on the Shayrat military base in Syria was the first unscheduled departure from Trump’s vision for US foreign policy. Washington’s response to Assad’s deployment of chemical weapons also run counter to Obama’s infamous ‘red lines’ policy. From there, us relations with Turkey − both bilaterally and within NATO frameworks − have been strained by Washington’s support for Kurdish militias in Syria fighting Islamic State. A very similar pattern is observable in relations with Russia with Trump forced to extend sanc- tions against Moscow and downplay his ambitions of reaching a deal with Vladimir Putin on improving us-Russian relations. In July, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching us territory. Pyongyang followed this in September by detonating its largest nuclear device to date. In doing so, the debate surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program has shifted from assessing capabilities to calculating intentions. 6 What hasn’t changed is the logic behind Pyongyang’s efforts to devel- op nuclear weapons and its hawkish stance vis-à-vis its neighbours. Ag- gressive behaviour is a long-term survival strategy that provides the her- mit kingdom with internal legitimisation and a bargaining position when dealing with the international community. An offensive nuclear capability Executive would allow the regime to leverage greater benefits in return for coopera- Editor’s tion while also significantly reducing the chances of external intervention. Analysis Only three powers are capable of preventing North Korea from follow- ing this path — the US, China and Russia. Of the three, Washington has the highest chance of forcing change, given its regional alliance network and close ties with South Korea. That said, any action against Pyongyang will require the prior approval of the United Nations, with Moscow and Beijing unlikely to side with Trump in the absence of a crisis that effects their strategic interests. This presents a dilemma for Trump whereby his actions (or inaction) could have direct consequences for the US’ global standing. The price of inaction would be a further withering away of US credibility in the eyes of its allies and a sign for other states with nuclear ambitions – all of whom have strained relations with Washington – to press on with weapons programs. On the other hand, military intervention − including support for Seoul if it decides to preemptively dismantle Pyongyang’s nuclear program − would push the region into strategic mayhem. South Korea would undoubtedly approach the military option with fear and trepidation. Not only does Seoul prefer a diplomatic solution, it also lacks the capacity to conduct a full-scale and independent military operation against its neighbour. Moreover, South Korea has faced episodic outbursts of hostile behaviour by the North for more than sixty years. Washington is well aware that any military scenario will mean destabilisation not only for the North but also the South. It is also widely assumed that the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is far greater than their use against adversaries. Yet, while there are plenty of examples of overthrown dictatorships over the past two decades, there’s never been an international effort to topple a nuclear regime. Consequent- ly, the Trump administration might refuse to pursue ‘strategic patience’ on the Korean Peninsula — the approach of his predecessor rather than his own foreign policy outlook. Choosing to act will fly in the face of his electoral promises to reduce US global leadership and responsibilities. 7 Book Reviews → Research Articles p. 142 9 From the End of History to the Post-American World Global Politics, Economy and Security at the Turn of the Epoch Miloš Balabán 37 The Alawites and the Labyrinthine Routes of Peace in Syria Michal Prokop 59 Features, Aims and Limits of Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy Federico Donelli 84 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and post-Soviet Central Asia New Multilateral Bank Formation in the Context of China’s Economic Interaction with post-Soviet Central Asian Countries Ksenia Muratshina 107 The Beijing Consensus Characteristics of China’s Official Development Finance in Ghana, 2000–2013 Iva Sojková From the End of History to the Post-American World Global Politics, Economy and Security at the Turn of the Epoch Miloš Balabán The author analyses a number of major works by American scholars (Fukuyama, Huntington, Zakaria, Nye, Haass, Mearsheimer, Brzez- inski, Jentleson, Wright, Ikenberry, Jones) that examine the global power shifts, especially with regard to the changing position and role of the us as the leading Western power. The United States is com- ing to terms with the end of the unipolar moment and adapting to new political, economic and security realities ushered in by the rise of non-Western powers. The above-mentioned scholars agree that, while this adaptation is not a smooth process, America’s substantial economic, military and research power still guarantees it a major role in the inevitable transformation of the international order. The arti- cle confronts academic concepts with the dynamics of global power shifts and the mistakes of American policy (e.g. in the Middle East) that undermine America’s global position. The erosion of American power and the power of the West is also bound to the economic and political problems generated by the us-triggered financial crisis of 2008. The last-mentioned factors help strengthen the role of non-western powers, especially China, in international politics, highlighting the need for a broader dialogue between them and the West about the future world order and forms of global governance. Keywords: great power, West, United States, China, crisis, influence multipolarity, dominance, global order Miloš

Load more