The challenges of partnering with sovereign democracies
By Valentin Yakushik
The ongoing expert discussion in the United States of the forthcoming official approval in India of a 5 billion (in US dollars) contract for the purchase of arms from the Russian Federation and the consequences of this for the domestic and foreign policy of the United States [1] requires an understanding of the content and context of this socially significant affair.
Contracts for the purchase by India, like Turkey, of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems are one of the forms of manifestation of a deeply thought-out policy of diversification (preservation or formation of a plurality) of sources for obtaining the latest weapons and military technologies. The goals of such a geopolitical line are multifaceted and multi-level, in particular:
1) to prevent excessive dependence on one of global centers and the associated risks of getting into a critical situation due to possible conflicts or misunderstandings with such a center or crisis phenomena in it;
2) to show the whole world, if not ones own temper, then a high level of self-esteem and the effectiveness of the strategies of sovereign democracy;
3) to provide domestic political support to the leaders of the country by the patriotic electorate.
It would seem that there is no particular conflict situation in this. But this would be so only in the case of the existence of a real multipolar world. Now we are dealing only with the initial stage of the formation of this type of international system. This is also related to clearly expressed nervous reactions of the geopolitical hegemon to the active manifestations of foreign policy and foreign economic actions uncontrolled by him (the hegemon) by the powers claiming the status of a sovereign democracy. The current hegemon, although being weakened, often retreating, somewhat moderating its ambitions, but still claims the right, if not completely to determine, then to regulate the choice of sources of military technologies and especially delicate and important types of weapons used by its junior partners and ward nations. Both modern India and Turkey are proud of the status of a real sovereign strategic partner of the United States, although the objectively existing (but not particularly emphasized) definition of junior (partner) does not satisfy India and Turkey.
The existence and application in the United States of the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) a 2017 law [2] and similar laws and by-laws, in particular, imposing sanctions on countries purchasing weapons from the wrong and inappropriate manufacturers, etc., is a manifestation of hegemons functions: a) to formally typologize and rank the international actors, b) unilaterally or together with the closest partners to form the normative basis for the new rules based world order. In the meantime, the manifestation of preparedness to apply sanctions against violators of the will (or simply whims) of the hegemon, in this particular case, most likely means the readiness of the current US leadership to ensure a gradual, phased transition to a truly multipolar world and, within the framework of such a relatively smooth transition, to give an opportunity to internal geopolitical radicals to let off steam in the form of their verbal activity and rule-making and law-enforcement excitement.
The author is Professor, Political Science, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev
Views are personal and International Affairs Review neither endorses nor is responsible for them.
We welcome all pitches and submissions to IAR via email: iareview2019@gmail.com
