A PRAGMATIC VISION NOT TO CHANGE THE WORLD IS NEEDED

1.  fight we are in is for something broader and more fundamental than democracy against autocracy. It is the right of peoples the world over to determine their own futures and to be free from naked aggression. This requires an orderly world where the law of the jungle does not operate.

The fact that nondemocratic systems have been so widespread and growing in number is not because evil rules the world, but because in many places circumstances are simply not ripe for stable democracy.

The Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington noted that the differences between democracy and dictatorship are less important than the differences between states with strong, well-institutionalized systems of governance and those that have weak or nonexistent institutions. Liberal societies can only emerge from the first category of states; not from the second. And there are still many of the second in this world.

Most of the people in the world yearn for competent technocratic governance, personal freedoms, meritocracy and a sense of justice from their regimes. Few long specifically for democracy. It isn’t that they are opposed to democracy per se. It is simply that personal freedoms  protecting minorities, freedom to travel  and efficient governance matter more to them than the ability to vote every few years.

Given these realities, leading a worldwide coalition against the two great Eurasian revanchist powers: Russia, which seeks to annex Ukraine, and China, which seeks to annex Taiwan requires a  pragmatic vision not to change the world, but to undo a particular territorial conquest. Likewise our strategy toward Russia and China should be oriented not to fight autocracy the world over, but to stop the armed aggression of two military powers.

On March 2, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and demanding the immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces. 141 countries out of 193 voted for the resolution, while just five voted against it. The negative votes came from Russia, three reliable client states-Belarus, Syria, and North Korea and Eritrea. An examination beneath the surface of the vote, however, reveals some interesting and troubling results for forging an impregnable global coalition to inflict financial and political pain on Vladimir Putin’s government for its aggression against Ukraine.

One factor that stands out immediately is the large number of abstentions. Thirty‐​five countries chose to abstain.

Some names on the roster of abstentions did not come as much of a surprise. The Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan have been under Moscow’s strong influence since the breakup of the Soviet Union in late 1991. A similar principle applies to Armenia. Cuba is a long‐​standing client from the Soviet era, and Latin America’s newer left‐​wing regimes in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and El Salvador are seeking Russia’s financial and political backing. Moscow has been working diligently to expand its influence with those and other countries in the region. Some other Russian clients, most notably Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela, chose not to cast votes at all -which was the functional equivalent of an abstention.

More than 20 percent of the General Assembly’s membership refused to embrace a purely feel‐​good measure Washington was pushing.

Other nations on the list were much more surprising. There were several recalcitrant states from the greater Middle East, most notably Algeria, Iran, and the biggest shock of all, Iraq. Given Baghdad’s extensive military and economic dependence on the United States, one would have thought that Iraq’s vote would have been firmly in the affirmative column.

Another big surprise was the large bloc of African members that abstained. That group included Burundi, the Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Mozambique, Madagascar, Namibia, Senegal, Sudan, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, and perhaps the biggest economic and political player on the continent, South Africa. Several others discreetly did not vote at all.

Even more troubling was when key countries in South Asia and East Asia especially India and China refused to vote in favor of the resolution.

Not only did India maintain its neutrality but it also brought along Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in its wake. Moreover, New Delhi’s longtime adversary- and Washington’s treaty ally Pakistan joined the ranks of countries casting abstentions. Vietnam and Mongolia declined to support the resolution. Vietnam was especially disappointing, since Washington has been actively courting Hanoi as an economic and security partner for years.

The biggest sign of potential trouble for U.S. policy, though, was China’s decision to abstain even with respect to a toothless, symbolic measure. Given the growing ties between Moscow and Beijing, it would be unrealistic for U.S. leaders to expect China to support any truly coercive measures against Russia. Indeed, there are ample signs that Washington’s clumsy, antagonistic policies have driven Russia and China into a close strategic partnership bordering on an outright alliance. Xi Jinping’s government has given multiple indications that it will not join in economic sanctions against Moscow. Indeed, Beijing is in a position to help cushion Russia against the impact of any sanctions that a U.S.-led coalition imposes and gain leverage in the bilateral relationship in the process. Nevertheless, voting for the resolution would have been an easy way for Beijing to maintain the image of some balance in its policy regarding Russia, as well as emphasize to Moscow that its sympathy and support have definite limits. The decision by the Chinese delegation to avoid endorsing that resolution suggests just how close bilateral ties have become. It is likely that China will be a major impediment in implementing meaningful sanctions to pressure Russia to abandon its war in Ukraine.

Case studies

1. India, Brazil, South Africa Israel and the Gulf States have been treading a very sharp line in the conflict in an attempt to preserve their strategic autonomy and have not joined the campaign of economic sanctions, military support and diplomatic pressure to further isolate Russia and bring a decisive end to the war despite their partnership with the US on other major security matters.
2. Brazil has declared its “solidarity “ with President Vladimir V. Putin. Brazil voted to condemn Russia, and Mr. Bolsonaro has pressed for negotiations to end the war. But his country continues to import fertilizer from Russia and Belarus, an ally of Moscow.
3. India abstained from the U.N. vote. India has a decades-long strategic partnership with Russia and relies on it for oil, fertilizer and military equipment. India is further increasing its already growing purchases of Russian crude oil.
4. South Africa’s ties to Russia go back to the Cold War, when the Soviet Union supported the anti-apartheid movement that transformed the nation’s internal power dynamics. Trade between the two countries is modest, but South Africa, like many other nations, has long been suspicious of Western colonialism and the United States as an unrivaled superpower. President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa has accused NATO of provoking Russia into war and has called for renewed diplomatic talks.
5. Brazil, India and South Africa  along with Russia and China are members of a group of nations (BRICS) that account for one-third of the global economy.
6. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which buy American weapons and lobby Washington for policies against Iran, their main rival have remained neutral.
7. Israel, which also buys American weapons and is the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East has expressed solidarity with Ukraine, but at the same time has resisted supporting some sanctions and direct criticism of Russia.
8. Uganda, Pakistan and Vietnam, have accused the U.S.-led coalition against Russia of shutting down any chance of peace talks with its military support of Ukraine.