Robert Reich: The Democrat’s Disease – OpEd

 July 10, 2022  

By Robert Reich

Much of today’s Republican Party is treacherous and treasonous. So why are Democrats facing midterm elections that, according to most political observers, they’re likely to lose? Having been a loyal Democrat for some seventy years (my father liked Ike but my mother and I were for Adlai), including a stint as a cabinet secretary, it pains me to say this, but the Democratic Party has lost its way.

How? Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left — too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish. Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism and why would Democrats want to be there? Others think Biden hasn’t been sufficiently angry or outraged. Please. What good would that do? And after four years of Trump, why would anyone want more anger and outrage?

The biggest failure of the Democratic Party — a disease that threatens the very life of the party — has been its loss of the American working class. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election, “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working class problem’ which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”

The working class used to be the bedrock of the Democratic Party. What happened?

Before Trump’s election, Democrats had occupied the White House for 16 of 24 years. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. During those years, Democrats scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. I take pride in being part of a Democratic administration during that time.

But I’d be lying to you if I didn’t also share my anger and frustration from those years — battles inside the White House with Wall Street Democrats and battles with corporate Democrats in Congress, all refusing to do more for the working class, all failing to see (or quietly encouraging) the rise of authoritarianism if the middle class continued to shrink. (I offer the following video clip not in the spirit of “I told you so” but as a way of sharing my frustrations and fears at the time.)

The tragic reality is that even when they’ve been in charge, Democrats have not altered the vicious cycle that has shifted wealth and power to the top, rigging the economy for the affluent and undermining the working class.

Clinton used his political capital to pass free trade agreements, without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs the means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. His North American Free Trade Agreement and plan for China to join the World Trade Organization undermined the wages and economic security of manufacturing workers across America, hollowing out vast swaths of the Rust Belt.

Clinton also deregulated Wall Street. This indirectly led to the financial crisis of 2008 — in which Obama bailed out the biggest banks and bankers but did nothing for homeowners, many of whom owed more on their homes than their homes were worth. Obama didn’t demand as a condition for being bailed out that the banks refrain from foreclosing on underwater homeowners. Nor did Obama demand an overhaul of the banking system. Instead, he allowed Wall Street to water down attempts at re-regulation.

Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the working class. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections. Biden has supported labor law reform but hasn’t fought for it, leaving the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to die inside the ill-fated Build Back Better Act.

At the same time, Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify, enabling large corporations to grow far larger and major industries to become more concentrated. Biden is trying to revive antitrust enforcement but hasn’t made it a centerpiece of his administration.

Both Clinton and Obama depended on big money from corporations and the wealthy. Both turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court opinion opening the floodgates to big money in politics.

Throughout these years, Democrats drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans – big corporations, Wall Street, and the very wealthy. “Business has to deal with us whether they like it or not, because we’re the majority,” crowed Democratic representative Tony Coelho, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 1980s when Democrats assumed they’d continue to run the House for years. Coelho’s Democrats soon achieved a rough parity with Republicans in contributions from corporate and Wall Street campaign coffers, but the deal proved a Faustian bargain. Democrats became financially dependent on big corporations and the Street.

By the 2016 election, the richest 100th of 1 percent of Americans – 24,949 extraordinarily wealthy people – accounted for a record-breaking 40 percent of all campaign contributions. That same year, corporations flooded the presidential, Senate and House elections with $3.4 billion in donations. Labor unions no longer provided any countervailing power, contributing only $213 million – one union dollar for every 16 corporate dollars.

**

Joe Biden has tried to regain the trust of the working class, but Democratic lawmakers (most obviously and conspicuously, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) have blocked measures that would have lowered the costs of childcare, eldercare, prescription drugs, healthcare, and education. They’ve blocked raising the minimum wage and paid family leave. They’ve blocked labor law reforms. Yet neither Manchin nor Sinema nor any other Democrat who has failed to support Biden’s agenda has suffered any consequences. Why does Manchin still hold leadership positions in the Senate? Why is Manchin’s West Virginia benefitting from the discretionary funds doled out by the administration?

Why hasn’t Biden done more to rally the working class and build a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy? Presumably for the same reasons Clinton and Obama didn’t: The Democratic Party still prioritizes the votes of the “suburban swing voter” – so-called “soccer moms” in the 1990s and affluent politically independent professionals in the 2000s – who supposedly determine electoral outcomes. And, as noted, the party depends on big money for its campaigns. Hence, it has turned it back on the working class.

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. There is no longer a moderate “center.” The real choice is either Republican authoritarian populism (see here, here, and here) or Democratic progressive populism. Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform — an anti-establishment movement. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, and classes to unrig the system. Trumpism is not the cause of our divided nation. It is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us.

Robert Reich

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Rape: The Russian tool of conquest

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 10, No. 6, June 2022

Police uncover the body of Karina Yeshiva, 22, in Bucha. Witnesses say she was tortured, raped, and shot in the head by Russian soldiers. Source: DW.

Stephanie Wild
University of Cape Town

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, at least 4,000 civilians have been killed. Moscow has therefore been accused of targeting civilians. However, this is not the only tactic emerging. Acts of rape and sexual violence are also emerging as a weapon of war. In fact, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report on the 3rd of June stating that they had already received allegations of 124 acts of conflict-related sexual assault in Ukraine. These reported assaults have mostly been against women and girls, ranging from gang rape, to coercion, to forcibly bearing witness to acts of sexual violence perpetrated against partners and children. Concerns surrounding human traffickers exploiting existing networks are also on the rise. A United Nations Security Council meeting, in particular, brought this to the attention of the world on June 6. 

Sexual violence being heavily associated with stigma and shame, the concern is that the actual figure is much higher than 124. A more accurate idea of the actual figure will only emerge with an end to the conflict. However, considering the number of reported sexual assaults, it is clear that Ukrainian women are the victims of sexual violence perpetrated by Russian soldiers each day. This points to a weaponization of sexual violence.  

The weaponization of sexual violence in Ukraine

The concept of weaponization essentially points to a systematic use of rape and acts of sexual assault with the intention of forwarding the agenda of war. Notably, this does not refer to soldiers experiencing violent outbursts out of frustration at war. It is not an accidental phenomenon. It is very much intentional. More specifically, rape is used to dehumanise its victims. This occurs through the stripping away of the victims’ dignity. Moreover, it is a way in which to express dominance. Soldiers display a physical act of dominance through the complete violation and dehumanisation of the civilian victims. It is therefore the ultimate act of dominion and victory. In fact, feminist scholars identify sexual violence, and rape specifically, to be a tool of patriarchal control, whereby sexual access to women reaffirms a man’s authority. Ultimately, the systematic use of rape when at war is a method of control through the dehumanisation and domination of the victim. This is happening in Ukraine.

In fact, Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Lyudmila Denisova, has been open about this weaponisation tactic described above. She has gone so far as citing victim testimony to suggest that they are signs of a “genocide of the Ukrainian people”. These victim testimonies include Russian soldiers calling Ukrainian women “Nazi whores”, as well as identifying the intention to rape until these victims can no longer birth Ukrainian children. And so, testimonies coming out of the invaded nation support this theory. With the liberation of each village, comes an influx of calls to Ukraine’s Psychological Assistance Line. While women appear to be the target of this violence, the Russian army has expanded its scope to include men and children. A man as old as 78 has reported being a victim of sodomy, and a one-year-old has been reported dead as a result of rape by two soldiers. The result of these actions is intended to be a Ukrainian sense of humiliation and helplessness.

Furthermore, it is not only testimonies and news headlines that support this notion of weaponization. This is not the first time that Russia has come under fire for this very strategy. For instance, the Soviet Army systematized the use of rape towards German women in the Second World War with the intention of gaining enemy territory. More specifically, throughout the Soviet Army’s mission to take Berlin, an estimated 125,000 German women are said to have been raped. This figure, when expanded to consider the Soviet occupation of and traversal of Eastern Europe is said to be closer to two million. Even more shocking, reports from this time indicate that victims ranged between the ages of eight and eighty.

Again, these acts cannot be dismissed as coincidental violent outbursts. Not only do the figures appear far too high for this to be the case, but evidence suggests that reports of the mass rapes were in fact read and seen by then-President Stalin. This re-enforced the idea of rape as a “tool of conquest”. Acts of sexual violence during the 1945 Soviet expansion of territory are therefore shown to have been indiscriminate and systematic. This is eerily similar to what is happening now in 2022. Russia is, again, on a mission to expand and increase its territory.     

How should Ukraine- alongside the international community- respond?

In rather broad terms, the solution here is to learn from previous mistakes. When looking at the international community’s response to Russia’s use of systematic rape in the 1940s, it was essentially non-existent. Rather, there was a silence that shrouded this topic. It is widely acknowledged that this narrative only changed in 2008 with the release of the film A Woman in Berlin. Essentially, this has amounted to over 60 years of impunity. It cannot happen again. Impunity breeds repetition. Russia must be shown that this tactic, no matter the war, is no longer an option. More than that, victims require recognition. As previously mentioned, victims of sexual violence experience extreme shame and stigma in society. The psychological effects are, as a result, generational. And so, intervention is key for a just transition to peace. 

Judicial processes in Ukraine indicate that such recognition is already underway. For instance, the first Russian soldier to be tried for rape has already been identified, Mikhail Romanov. He is accused of breaking into a civilian home, murdering the homeowner, as well as repeatedly assaulting said homeowner’s wife. While he is not in Ukrainian custody, he will be tried in his absence. And so, despite the war raging on, war crimes are already being tried in the courts of law. This momentum must, simply, not be lost. 

 Additionally, a response to these crimes must not be strictly judicial. Acts of sexual assault are notoriously difficult to convict. And so, these judicial proceedings must be accompanied by some transitional justice mechanism to ensure that those victims unable to see their attackers convicted are too recognised. These mechanisms, at their core, are driven by this very purpose. To do so, a universal truth and account of events must be established. There must be no question in the minds of the nation that these women, men and children suffered. This can only be done through investigating cases, as well as through providing the victims of Russian sexual assault a platform on which to recount their experiences. This therefore calls for a truth commission post-war. 

---

Stephanie Wild has a B.A in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, accompanied by a B.A Honours in Justice and Transformation, from the University of Cape Town, where she is currently pursuing her MPhil in Public Law. Her research focuses on transitional justice and gender.

Liberalism In Peril: A Theory Of Conflict In World Politics – OpEd

Flags in front of United Nations building in New York City

 July 10, 2022  Eurasia Review  0 Comments

By Ibrahim Nahushal

Rise of liberalism

The US and its democratic allies had defeated fascism and then communism, supposedly leaving humankind at “the end of history”. The European Union seemed like a bold experiment in shared sovereignty that had banished war from most of Europe. Indeed, many Europeans believed its unique combination of democratic institutions, integrated markets, the rule of law, and open borders made Europe’s “civilian power” an equal if not superior counterpart to the crude “hard power” of the US. For its part, the US committed itself to “enlarging the sphere of democratic rule, getting rid of autocrats, solidifying the “democratic peace,” and thereby ushering in benevolent and enduring world order (Walt, 2016). On the other side, the fruit of liberal financial systems and market economy led by free trade and international financial rules is being harvested which gave some states incentives to raise and stand for their geopolitical interests by ignoring American unilateralism.

The democratization, pacification and economic resuscitation of Germany and Japan, along with the introduction of American power permanently into the previously conflicted regions of Europe and East Asia, transformed the dynamics of international relations. Within the confines of the new order, normal geopolitical competition all but ceased until the time when new actors and new states on the global stage appeared to defend their geopolitical interests (Kagan, 2016).

Liberal order and the eventual cracking

The liberal world has been destined for nations’ economic wellbeing, freedom, democracy and human rights. Under this rubric, many nations around the globe joined the liberal world club and enrolled on its financial institutions, created by the American legacy. The whole idea was based on “American values”; democracy, free market, collective security, self-determination etc.…

Since the liberal idea was based on an idealistic conception of the US and the West, the principles of this concept might not be shared by the rest of the world as a whole. The metaphysics of liberalism is a mind-devised utopian world order. Though this conception of world order became a reality to some degree, the stability of such an order was in peril as many states devised their own identity based on their distinctive cultures and nationalism which vindicated the geopolitical discourse. As Kissinger (2014) said, there are no universally accepted rules. There is the Chinese view, the Islamic view, the Western view and, to some extent, the Russian view. And they really are not always compatible.

Many countries gained their share and increased their fortunes while others invigorated their economies to an extent that they can defy American hegemony, and choose their own narrative in their relationship vis-à-vis with other regional nations and, like China and Turkey.

The US expected to exercise its diplomacy and military prowess generated by its robust economy to coerce other countries to commit themselves to the US interests seeing those countries as in the sphere of influence since they are well rooted in the US-led world order. But as their economies started to grow and consequently defied the US interests in their regions, the US started to eviscerate and debilitate those countries of its rising economy and leadership role in the region.  More directly the US has betrayed a system established by itself.

Recently a bevy of US political scientists from the progressive left to the libertarian right has launched attacks on the very idea of the liberal order, as well as on the conduct of the US foreign policy over the past seven decades. These critics argue that the liberal order was a “myth,” a cover for the US hegemony and “imperialism.” To the degree there was an order, it was characterized by “coercion, violence, and instability,” and also by hypocrisy (Kagan, 2016).

It was when rising states’ interests converged and collided with the US interests, that The US chose to avoid liberal rules and resorted to its “soft power” of economic and diplomatic coercion, leaving behind the long-standing liberal affairs.

From another perspective, the current world order is being challenged by the rising states who did not have a say when the order was created in the first place. These states seek to overhaul the order in order to establish a favourable atmosphere where their geopolitical interests are best served. 

The US has refuted the legitimacy of the international criminal court, an institution established under the US-led liber world order after the US revoked ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s visa as a response to her request to investigate possible crimes committed by the US forces in Afghanistan.

It can be said that China is the second nation after the US which exploited the US-led free-market economic system by establishing a massive flow of Chinese goods into world markets and establishing the “belt and road initiative”, from which the US and some of its allies cannot take their gaze off for its massiveness and economic potentials.

US President Donald Trump complained about China’s trading practices since before he took office in 2016. It imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese products last year, and Beijing retaliated in kind. So far, the US has imposed three rounds of tariffs on more than $250bn worth of Chinese goods. Tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, in theory, make US-made products cheaper than imported ones and encourage consumers to buy American.

In theory, what we expect among states is cooperation and what we expect among businesses is competition. But for the US, this time the narrative has changed, the narrative or old saying of the liberal free-market economic system.

To some extent, the US achieved its liberal democratic world, without any other symmetric superpower. Clashes eventually resulted as rising countries started to defend their interests which collided with the US interests.

The world is no longer purely unipolar, rising states are demanding more share and pushing their narratives into global platforms. It is time for the US to change its unilateral, realist-driven foreign policy and get back on the track of liberal values, most importantly multilateral decision-making in world affairs.

References:

Kissinger, H. (2014). Interview by E. F. &. J. von Mittelstaedt. Retrieved from https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html

Walt, S. M. (2016, June 26). The collapse of the liberal world order. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from Foreign Policy website: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/26/the-collapse-of-the-liberal-world-order-european-union-brexit-donald-trump/

Kagan, R. (2018, September 28). The world America made — and Trump wants to unmake. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from POLITICO website: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-wants-to-destroy-liberal-world-order-post-ww2/

Implications of China’s Pacific Dream for the United States, Australia, and Allies

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 10, No. 6, June 2022

Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and Solomons Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade, Jeremiah Manele, 2019. Source: cnsphoto

Yan C. Bennett
Princeton University

John Garrick
Charles Darwin University

It is apparent that Xi Jinping’s Chinese Dream now includes the Pacific Ocean where his Foreign Minister Wang Yi has undertaken a Pacific Islands tour of broad scope and ambition. While  China’s economy is stagnating, it nevertheless continues to drive for increasing its world power as Minister Wang aims to finalise the China-Solomons Security agreement and has hosted a Pacific Island Foreign Ministers meeting whilst in Fiji. Wang’s proposals have prompted strong responses from the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific, in particular Australia and New Zealand.

What Wang proposed was that China and the Pacific countries jointly formulate a ‘marine spatial plan’ as a way to promote sustainable development of the blue economy. China is offering more investment in the region by mobilizing private capital and encouraging Chinese enterprises to directly invest in Pacific Island countries. What is being viewed more ominously, however, are the new security arrangements reflecting General-Secretary Xi’s “global security initiative” that involves dispatching Chinese police and other security forces to work with participating island nations at both bi-lateral and regional levels and a new emphasis on cyber security. Minister Wang’s plans also include the establishment of a network of Confucius Institutes with embedded Chinese language consultants, teachers, and volunteers on the islands. In the US, these Confucius Institutes and their teachers have been seen as vehicles of CCP propaganda and as a way to stifle academic speech on the activities of the Chinese government. A separate “five-year action plan” would appoint a Chinese special envoy to the region, institute Chinese-built crime laboratories, provide hundreds of training opportunities, and hold various high-level forums.

Wang’s proposals to cash-strapped Pacific islands place a larger PRC footprint in the Pacific, which would then challenge the existing Pacific Island Forum (PIF) that currently defends international law and maintains peace and security institutions in the region. Additionally, it puts the immediate spotlight on the island nations themselves and on American Indo-Pacific allies. Responses are coming fast and furious from the US, Australia, New Zealand, France and now Canada, which is developing a highly anticipated Indo-Pacific Strategy following its recent ban on Huawei participating in Canada’s 5G wireless network on national security grounds.

For Australia, China’s expanding interests in the Pacific Islands prompted a domestic reaction in the Australian Federal election campaign in 2022 following China’s security deal with the Solomons that would allow Beijing to deploy forces to “protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.” The Labor party and the Liberal/National Coalition acknowledged that whoever won the election would face serious challenges in the Pacific region. And so it proves to be.

As recently as April 22, a senior delegation led by Kurt Campbell, the U.S.’ National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific, met with the Islands’ leadership to register their interests and concerns. While recognizing the Solomons’ sovereign decision-making, Campbell said that if steps were taken that created a potential security risk to the wider region, the U.S. would have concerns with that. The meeting launched a new high level strategic dialogue, and according to Campbell, the U.S. has to step up its game across the board in the Pacific by meeting Pacific nations’ needs. China’s intentions in the Pacific have been outlined and they make it clearer why the Sino-Solomons security agreement met with international concern, which has led to the U.S. reopening an Embassy in the Solomon Islands after a break of 30 years.

China’s Pacific dream unfolds

For China’s Foreign Minister to make such a tour of the Pacific Islands at this moment, it is reasonable to ask what are China’s primary interests in proposing a Region-wide economic/security pact with Pacific Island nations and what are the geopolitical implications of Minister Wang’s plans for the Pacific?

While world media attention has been focused on Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, China quietly completed the groundwork for the Solomons deal which had taken years to execute. It was connected to China’s campaign to convert Pacific islands from allegiances with Taiwan to the People’s Republic. The costs of converting the Solomons were expensive, but this investment now appears to have a big pay-off with a strategic window to the South Pacific opening for the PRC. Wang Yi’s tour seizes the moment to prise that window further open. Even though he has failed to win a consensus from the 10 Pacific nations to sign up to his “Common Development Vision,” at least half-a-dozen countries including Samoa, Kiribati and Niue have signed up for enhanced co-operation in Beijing’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road infrastructure investment program. So, what are China’s core interests in this Pacific expansion?

First, the example of the security agreement with the Solomon Islands to allow China to “send police, armed police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces … [and] that Beijing could send ships for stopovers and to replenish supplies”, makes explicit China’s blueprint for expansion. These elements suggest the potential establishment of a military base, although the Solomons’ government denies this will happen as does China. But similar agreements have already been made with other Pacific island nations that acceded to build dual-use, military-commercial facilities in return for money and assistance. This is precisely what China wants and what China has been working toward for decades and reflects a fully weaponized foreign-aid program conflated with dual-use (civilian/military) development along with regional cyber control.

Second, the Solomon Islands’ vast economic zone is resource rich, replete with timber, significant fish stocks, and a range of other natural resources both above and under the sea. With 1.4 billion people there should be no surprise to anyone that Beijing is keen to exploit the region, despite claims to the contrary.

Third, flipping the Solomon Islands from its long-term support for Taiwan in 2019 was a diplomatic success for the PRC. It mounts pressure on other nearby island nations, including the three French territories of the South Pacific: French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and Wallis and Futuna, and U.S. allies the Marshall Islands and Palau amongst other neighbours including Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and also Indonesia. Indeed, New Caledonia has faced intense independence activism from its indigenous Kanaks, and recent referenda voted only narrowly to remain with France.

A fourth message is conveyed internationally that U.S. (and Taiwanese) influence in the Pacific fades while Beijing’s rises. Domestically, China’s state-controlled media presents this deal as a significant strategic loss to the U.S. and Australia.

A further interest for China, and connected to its soft power push into the Pacific, is to eventually add to its collection of ‘Global South’ votes at the United Nations (UN). Although the Solomons did not follow China in recent UN votes on two key questions regarding Russia: removing Russia from the UNHRC and ending Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. China abstained and the Solomon Islands voted against Russia. Nonetheless, incentivizing South Pacific nations to vote with China at the UN benefits the Middle Kingdom’s broader plans to shape peak governance bodies.

Geopolitical implications for Pacific nations

Almost like jigsaw puzzle pieces, the Solomon Islands deal fits perfectly into China’s efforts to reframe the world order, piece-by-piece co-opting small states. It is now clear that China’s ambitions extend very broadly across the Pacific. When viewed in the context of geopolitics, including the war in Ukraine, it is clear enough that the Beijing-Moscow axis is underway at the global level. In Xi’s words, “to maintain world peace and security and upholding non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.” But what Xi says and what he does can be two very different things. Along with Russia, the PRC certainly uses coercion, interference tactics and brute force to achieve strategic objectives.

Looking ahead, Indo-Pacific nations including the U.S. and its allies face a concerted assault on the current international rules-based order. To assume Beijing’s intentions are benign, even helpful would be naïve at best, even though some challenges are best shared, such as climate-change action and responses to natural disaster. Poorer countries like the Solomons and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations are confronted with monumental challenges. But playing one superpower off with another in pursuit of a better local deal may have unintended consequences. This potential was foreseen by David Panuelo, President of the Federated States of Micronesia, who says, Mr Wang’s “pre-determined joint communique” should be rejected [as] it could spark a new “cold war” between China and the West. However, unless the West effectively helps Pacific Islands as respectful, reliable partners, when vulnerable some Pacific forum nations may well seek alternatives. But based on previous examples, assistance agreements with China will have serious strings attached and the promise of sustainable security architecture can certainly lead to more authoritarian control.

---

Yan C. Bennett is Assistant Director for the Paul and Marcia Wythes Center on Contemporary China at Princeton University, U.S. John Garrick is a university fellow in law at Charles Darwin University in Australia. Acknowledgement: Thanks to Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, University of Ottawa, for contributing comments on an early draft relating to Canadian Indo-Pacific policy developments.