It was probably inevitable that Russia’s war on the Ukrainian people would rekindle Cold War tropes of “East versus West”, with particular emphasis on a “revival of the West”.
Whatever one may think of “the West”, it is more than a cartographic reality, as the late economist Angus Maddison described the European world. The revivalism either marks the return of European dominance of the world or, when considered in the longue durée, it may be analogous to the 72-second “Wow! signal” detected by Ohio State University’s Big Ear Telescope in 1977.
I remain convinced, nonetheless, that the future of the global political economy lies in the East, and that “the West” is an idea whose time has come and gone. But let us return to the conventional wisdom emanating mainly from the West. Writing in the influential Foreign Affairs, former US ambassador to Nato Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations captured a spirit of revivalism in an article published on April 7, “Why Putin Underestimated the West: And How to Sustain Its Newfound Unity”. Note, especially, the reference to “newfound unity”.
This is a clear acknowledgement that the West has been going through an especially fissiparous period, and that it is probably in decline. I am forcing this claim into the “long waves of capitalist development” that Maddison raised in his Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development. Yet, as the Financial Times reported a month ago, “while there is undoubted satisfaction in Washington and Brussels at the strength and unity of the Western response, even the optimists are keenly aware that Western unity could be fragile and fleeting”.
One of the outcomes of this newfound but fragile optimism is that Washington and its allies beyond continental Europe — notably Japan, South Korea and Australia — have joined in the sanctions against Russia. As has Switzerland, an important international financial centre and usually a neutral country.
This allied effort has made the US somewhat relaxed about placing sanctions on the Russian Central Bank. China and parts of Southeast Asia may become casualties (collateral damage, in Pentagon-speak) as Beijing tries to diversify its assets away from the dollar.
Condemned attack
While Southeast Asia seems divided on Russia’s war against the Ukrainian people, Singapore has been unambiguous, placing heavy sanctions on Russia. In March it banned all financial institutions on its shores from conducting transactions or establishing business relationships with Russia’s VTB Bank, Vnesheconombank (VEB), Promsvyazbank and Bank Rossiya. Singapore has also imposed a prohibition on providing financial services that facilitate fundraising for the Russian government, the central bank of Russia or entities controlled by them.
Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines have condemned the attack on Ukraine without naming Russia as the aggressor. Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos, countries with close ties to Moscow, have been more than hesitant. Myanmar’s military rulers have vocally supported the invasion, while Vietnam and Laos abstained from a UN vote condemning Russia.
One explanation for this diverse response from Southeast Asia may be part of the Association of South East Asian Nations’ (Asean) effort to carve out a “third space” in diplomacy — slightly reminiscent of the Non-Aligned Movement — and avoid taking sides in superpower disputes or conflict. For example, Singapore ambassador at large Chan Heng Chee said in a recent Nikkei Asia interview that countries are increasingly adopting limited positions on specific key issues, guided by national interests.
On tenterhooks
Regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine, she said if the first two “spaces” were made up of a binary East versus West conflict, most Asean countries would seek a third category. While their responses might lean towards either side, they may stop short of fully backing one over the other.
“They will pick their issues, and they want the independence to do that. They don’t think it’s contradictory — it’s their self-interest…. More and more countries are moving into that group — so you choose what is in your self-interest, and how to protect your sovereignty,” Chan said.
Globally, the divisions over Russia’s war do not seem to be clear-cut. Continental Europe in particular remains on tenterhooks. Ivailo Kalfin, a former (twice) deputy prime minister of Bulgaria, believes the EU’s “future hangs in the balance”.
Writing to commemorate Europe Day on May 9, he explained: “Europe’s prioritisation of citizens’ rights, aspirations and perspectives could not be more in contrast to the callous disregard for human life and dignity that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war is having a devastating effect on the Ukrainian people and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis is unfolding. Economic sanctions have led to an additional surge in the prices of energy and food and the disruption of many established supply-chain links.”
This, then, is where we find ourselves. If ever there was an example of war taking on a life of its own, we have a near perfect example of a contemporary war that has very many countries in a quandary.
• Lagardien, an external examiner at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, has worked in the office of the chief economist of the World Bank as well as the secretariat of the National Planning Commission.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.