Good understanding

Diplomacy and dialogue can defuse international conflicts at an early stage – they should not be used as a repair measure when it is already too late.

In a guest lecture in Singapore in mid-June 2024, former Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr. Marty Natalegawa passionately advocated diplomacy and dialogue to avoid further military conflicts and the peaceful resolution of conflicts of interest. His keyword “Amity” stands for friendship or good understanding between states and was contractually agreed upon by the ten ASEAN members in 1976 as the basis for mutual relations. Since then, the principle has prevented armed conflicts and promoted the region's rapid economic growth. Unfortunately, many countries in other regions can only dream of this. In the militarily charged situation of today's highly fragmented world, dialogue and diplomacy are therefore urgently needed.
by Wolfgang Sachsenröder

[This article posted on 7/9/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/gutes-einvernehmen.]

The British-American poet W.H. Auden captured the political alternatives in the following verses:
“When statesmen gravely say, we must be realistic,
The chances are they're weak and, therefore, pacifistic,
But when they speak of Principles, look out: perhaps
Their generals are already poring over maps.”

The combination of “realistic” and “pacifist” sounds ironic, but it only confirms the German saying “the stronger always has the right”. Looking back with nostalgia at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the 1970s and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in the 1990s between the United States and the Soviet Union, the current state of the world is frightening. Not only is 2023 the year with the highest number of simultaneous armed conflicts in history, but the widespread drive for even more military armament is also unprecedented. And while the media's attention is focused on Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, the wars in Sudan, Yemen, Haiti and many other places are neglected or ignored.

As much as diplomacy and dialogue are needed, they often come too late and act as a repair tool or a fire brigade when the house is already ablaze.

The hectic shuttle diplomacy of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken between Jerusalem, Kiev and Washington is just the latest example. One of the reasons for this is that political leaders do not always make sufficient use of the potential of the diplomatic services with their tens of thousands of experienced ambassadors and diplomatic staff. Politicians may read diplomatic reports, but they tend to form their opinions and judgments on the basis of many other sources of information, especially the media, secret services, surveys, think tank publications, and thus the prevailing narratives, often additionally filtered through party programs and ideologies.

Public opinion, schools of thought and narratives

Many people probably underestimate the long-term impact of academic theories as a source of information for politicians and the public. The same applies to the growing number of think tanks, which exist in all shapes, sizes and with all kinds of objectives. This deserves particular attention, as many of them have objectively sounding titles with terms such as international relations, political research, public policy, strategic studies. However, many are established and funded with a clear agenda, even if they are affiliated with a university and include well-known academics among their staff. Wikipedia lists 143 think tanks in the US alone in the category “Politics and Economics” and 73 more for “International Relations and Security”.

There are between 11,000 and 12,000 think tanks worldwide, of which about half are influential and regularly publish research papers, books, memoranda and press releases, as well as organizing conferences. Together with the contributions of universities, this opinion industry creates narratives and contributes to shaping political agendas and public opinion. The danger is that think tanks that are close to or funded by interest groups, political parties or powerful industrial enterprises develop narratives that are not necessarily in the national interest of the respective country.

Not surprisingly, these are often even less in the interest of international peace. Think tanks and academia contribute to the formation of so-called “discourse coalitions” at the national and global level, which influence and reinforce perceptions and opinions. Due to their aura of academic authority, their influence on the media can hardly be overestimated. In an era of increasing unreliability of sources of information and disinformation, the manipulation of consumers, citizens and voters is dangerous. And political partisanship and propaganda are increasingly dividing national societies and the world as a whole.

With the rapid disintegration of the post-war liberal or “rule-based” world order, political rivalries and economic competition are intensifying. The most visible and probably the most dangerous is the growing rivalry between the US and China.

Sleepwalking into war
“Sleepwalking Toward War: Will America and China Heed the Warnings of Twentieth-Century Catastrophe?” is the title of an article by Yale professor Odd Arne Westad, published in Foreign Affairs on June 13, 2024. Westad begins with historian Paul Kennedy's analysis of the growing hostility between Britain and Germany before the First World War. After the German unification of 1871 and the rapid industrialization and colonial expansion of the empire, Great Britain saw German competition as a threat to its national security, especially as Germany began to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy with the construction of its fleet. As a result, British politicians and commentators accused Germany of “unfair trade practices”. In 2024, this sounds more than familiar.

To cite just one current example, the technological edge and price advantages of Chinese electric cars are threatening the existence of European carmakers. Since their sales in the Chinese car market account for a significant portion of their profits, a direct confrontation would be too risky. But the new import tariffs do not promise a compromise that could prevent a full-blown trade war.

The narrative of unfair trade is not only old, but also hypocritical, because it contradicts the free trade and market mantras of the industrialized world.

Just as Germany caught up with Britain 150 years ago, China is now surpassing the traditional patterns of economic development in terms of speed and depth. The improvement of all kinds of products and the development of market leadership for these products are increasing the fear of being overtaken in Europe and the USA.
In addition to economic competition, the military imbalance between the US and China has also changed rapidly. The US increasingly perceives China's expansion of its naval and air forces as a direct threat, while China is becoming more assertive in the face of American dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, especially since it has been surrounded by numerous US bases since World War II. The arms race is therefore continuing, despite the nuclear arsenals on both sides, which were once seen as a guarantee against surprise attacks. At the end of May 2024, Republican Senator Roger Wicker published a passionate plea in the New York Times for a massive increase in America's military budget. America's Military Is Not Prepared for War — or Peace. A key sentence in it reads: “We can avoid war by preparing for it.”

Unfortunately, this ancient Roman axiom only applied to a dominant power, but no longer to the increasingly asymmetrical warfare of the present day.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

As the European response to the war in Ukraine since 2022 has shown, war rhetoric seems to be contagious as a powerful narrative. Special narratives such as the theory of the “Thucydides Trap”, which Harvard political scientist Graham Allison put forward in 2012, are both seductive and dangerous. It states that a war between China and the United States is as inevitable as the wars between Athens and Sparta 2,500 years ago.
If such a narrative does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy, it still creates all kinds of political demands and priorities, especially in terms of arms procurement and the development of advanced weapons systems. Even more dangerous than academic and journalistic narratives are the “weaponized narratives” or narrative weapons of secret state actors who use information and communication technologies and services to undermine the institutions and identity of the enemy with narratives. The latest revelations by the Reuters news agency in connection with Covid and China are an example of this.

For many countries in the southern hemisphere, taking sides with China or the USA is not a viable solution. The West will have to make changes or adjustments to the existing world order. That is why one of the most important questions of our time is whether aggressive political narratives can be defused through dialogue and preventive diplomacy.

Military confrontation cannot, or rather must not, be the alternative.

Wolfgang Sachsenröder, born in 1943, has worked as a political consultant in Asia, the Middle East and Southeast Europe and has been living in Singapore again since 2008. He is particularly interested in Southeast Asia, where he has been observing and commenting on politics for a total of 25 years. In his latest book, he describes the history of the opium trade and its political consequences to the present day: “From Opium to Amphetamines – The Nine Lives of the Narcotics Industry in Southeast Asia”, published in April by WorldScientific. In his blog partyforumseasia.org, he highlights political developments in the region.

Read more
Related article
Fear of Russia

The West fears the large country in the East because it accuses it of having an aggressive mentality.
17.07.2024 by Rüdiger Rauls

•