Chaillot Paper October 2009 n°118 Global security in a multipolar world Feng Zhongping, Robert Hutchings, Radha Kumar, Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Paulo Wrobel and Andrei Zagorski Edited by Luis Peral with an introduction by Álvaro de Vasconcelos In January 2002 the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) became an autonomous Paris-based agen- cy of the European Union. Following an EU Council Joint Action of 20 July 2001, modified by the Joint Action of 21 December 2006, it is now an integral part of the new structures that will support the further deve- lopment of the CFSP/ESDP. The Institute’s core mis- sion is to provide analyses and recommendations that can be of use and relevance to the formulation of the European security and defence policy. In carrying out that mission, it also acts as an interface between European experts and decision-makers at all levels. Chaillot Papers are monographs on topical questions written either by a member of the EUISS research team or by outside authors chosen and commissioned by the Institute. Early drafts are normally discussed at a semi- nar or study group of experts convened by the Institute and publication indicates that the paper is considered by the EUISS as a useful and authoritative contribution to the debate on CFSP/ESDP. Responsibility for the views expressed in them lies exclusively with authors. Chaillot Papers are also accessible via the Institute’s website: www.iss.europa.eu Chaillot Paper October 2009 n°118 Global security in a multipolar world Feng Zhongping, Robert Hutchings, Radha Kumar, Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Paulo Wrobel and Andrei Zagorski Edited by Luis Peral with an introduction by Álvaro de Vasconcelos Institute for Security Studies European Union Paris Institute for Security Studies European Union 43 avenue du Président Wilson 75775 Paris cedex 16 tel.: +33 (0)1 56 89 19 30 fax: +33 (0)1 56 89 19 31 e-mail: [email protected] www.iss.europa.eu Director: Álvaro de Vasconcelos © EU Institute for Security Studies 2009. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the EU Institute for Security Studies. ISSN 1017-7566 ISBN 978-92-9198-156-4 QN-AA-09-118-EN-C Published by the EU Institute for Security Studies and printed in Condé-sur-Noireau (France) by Corlet Imprimeur. Graphic design by Claire Mabille (Paris). Contents n°118 October 2009 Introduction – Multilateralising multipolarity II 5 1 Between self-interest and a ‘responsible-power’ approach Álvaro de Vasconcelos 2 Brazil’s approach to security in the 21st century 15 Paulo Wrobel • Introduction 15 • National defence 16 • International and regional peace and security 19 • Economic growth, trade and security: the case of the BRIC states 23 • Energy security 25 • Environmental security 27 • Conclusion 29 3 China’s new security perceptions and practice 31 Feng Zhongping (ed.) • Introduction 31 • The economic crisis and its impact on China’s security and social development 31 • China’s multilateral policy in conflict resolution 33 • China’s national defence policy 37 • Arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation 38 • Anti-terrorism 40 • Energy security and climate change 43 • Cyber security 46 • Conclusion 47 4 India’s potential role in a new global security consensus 49 Radha Kumar • Introduction 49 • New government, new impetus 49 • The threat perception in India 51 • Conclusion 65 5 The limits of a global consensus on security: the case of Russia 67 Andrei Zagorski • Introduction 67 • A broad definition of security 68 • Evolution of the Russian perception of threats and security policy 70 • The contrasting official doctrine 74 • Multilateralism and regionalism in Russian security policy 78 • Limits of a rapprochement with the West 81 • Conclusion 83 International security and African regional security: perspectives 6 from South Africa 85 Elizabeth Sidiropoulos • Introduction 85 • Framework for defining South Africa’s security 86 • Identifying internal and external threats 92 • Responding to threats 95 • Conclusion 102 7 The United States and the emerging global security agenda 103 Robert Hutchings • Introduction 103 • Towards a post-cold war order 104 • 9/11 and the ‘global war on terror’ 107 • The Obama administration 109 • The emerging global agenda 111 • A global grand bargain? 118 • Conclusion 120 8 Conclusion 121 Luis Peral • The context 121 • The concept 123 • The threats 126 • Responses and prospects for the future 129 Annexes 133 • About the authors 133 • Abbreviations 134 Global security in Multilateralising multipolarity II a multipolar world Between self-interest and a ‘responsible- power’ approach Álvaro de Vasconcelos 1 Introduction This is the second Chaillot Paper in a series exploring the various strands of a global topic: multilateralising multipolarity. Through the essays collected in the first study,1 we set out to assess the scope of change in the international system and how EU action could best be suited to bringing about a multilateral order. After the fall of the Berlin Wall brought about the end of bipolar- ity, the world has changed no less dramatically since the 1990s witnessed the Balkan wars and the first EU military crisis-man- agement operations. Basically, the post-Cold War ‘unipolar’ world turned ‘multipolar’, and as a result the West can no longer tackle global issues – made more pressing indeed due to this very transformation – on its own any more than it can deal single- handedly with regional crises. The comparative analysis of the strategic vision of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the so-called BRICs, showed that the best policy mindset for the European Union, contrary to some suggestions, was not to try to become a normal hard-power player. It further concluded that, in a multi- polar world, this was simply not a viable option. For the European Union to survive and to influence the outcome of the interna- tional order, it must succeed in giving a multilateral dimension to the current multipolarity; in other words, Europe must be able to define together with other world and regional powers the norms and rules that are needed to drive concerted efforts to stay clear of some future clash of competing unilateralisms. Earlier this year, the G20 took some steps towards global eco- nomic governance that are expected to have immediate repercus- sions in fighting climate change and dealing with related issues like poverty, food crises and energy. Progress has been less clear in addressing international security issues. Apart from the BRICs, this volume also focuses on the United States, without whom 1. Giovanni Grevi and Álvaro de there will be no multilateral order, and South Africa, a voice in the Vasconcelos, ‘Partnerships for ef- developing world for a new global order. This publication is fective multilateralism’, Chaillot Paper no. 109 , EU Institute for Se- intended as a contribution to the necessary debate on multilater- curity Studies, Paris, May 2008. 5 1 Multilateralising multipolarity II alising multipolarity in the security arena. Other studies will fol- low, in what is a central and long-term project of the EUISS. Global security The consequences for international security of an asymmetric mul- tipolarity are far from clear. Its ‘global’ nature (in the sense that unlike the situation prevailing until the 1990s it is no longer a by- product of the European scene) and the fact that today’s world is interdependent to an unprecedented extent are however beyond dispute – this is what allows us to speak of global security. If the last year or so can be taken as an indication of present and future trends, European and world leaders are likely, in the years to come, to concentrate more on dealing with international issues like cli- mate change, development or poverty-reduction than security proper. A confrontation verging on war or war itself among the big powers, directly or by proxy, remains extremely unlikely. This is not to say that there are no longer major security issues – in the proper sense of involving the use or the threat of the use of armed force – that the international community will need to deal with in the years to come; it does mean however that it is unlikely that security gov- ernance will be the main priority for global initiatives, with the notable exception of non-proliferation and disarmament. The role that each one of the global and regional players will play, and wishes to play, in managing international security is far from obvi- ous – as the essays in the following pages illustrate. It is glaringly obvious, on the other hand, that the so-called ‘Western alliance’ is no longer the lonely bulwark of global governance, including in the realm of security. There are contradictory tendencies in the countries whose security doctrines are scrutinised here. In the United States nationalist-minded unilateralism has lost ground, for the time being, to a clear multilateral drive. By and large, the emerging pow- ers have come to share the concept of ‘responsible power’, an expression often heard, with slight varieties of emphasis, in Bei- jing, New Delhi and Brasília, reflecting a recognition that interna- tional interests, along with a drive for stronger representation in multilateral institutions, entail taking on a fairer share of respon- sibility for global security. How Russia’s renewed national assertiveness fits with this pattern, which is also discernible, mutatis mutandis, at a regional level – see South Africa – is not at all 6 Álvaro de Vasconcelos 1 clear. As an ‘old’ power, there is hardly the need to re-state the global ambition with which it was credited, for better or for worse, at least until the mid-1980s, but Russia does crave to be recognised anew as a world power and does not shy away from achieving this on the basis of ample national interests – sufficiently vast, in terms of Russia’s own self-perception, for Russia to qualify as a big power.